Order 30

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 24 Civ Suit 547/23
RAJDULARI Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR
08.05.2026
Present: Sh. Vihan & Akash, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the
plaintiff.
Sh. Mohit Bansal & Ms. Pallavi Nayyar, Ld.
Counsel for the defendant.
Two applications are pending in the instant matter.
The first one is u/O 39 Rule 2(A) CPC and the second one U/o 7
Rule 11 CPC. It is in the interest of justice that the application
u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC be decided prior to the one u/O 39 Rule 2(A)
CPC because the fate of application u/O 39 Rule 2(A) CPC
would be largely dependent upon the maintainability of the
instant suit. Hence, it is imperative that the application u/O 7
Rule 11 CPC be decided prior in time.
Perusal of record would reveal that last opportunity
was granted to file the reply to the application u/O 7 Rule 11
CPC and having failed to do so the opportunity given to the
plaintiff for the same stands closed. Even today main counsel has
not appeared and proxy counsel has appeared.
Arguments heard on application u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC on
behalf of defendant / applicant. Ld. Counsel for the defendant
would submit that it was the FIR no. 428/2023 which led to the
initiation of instant proceedings. Ld. Counsel further argues that
the suit property described as C-24 does not exist. Ld. Counsel
further argues that plaintiff has admitted in FIR no. 428/2023 that
defendant no. 4 had prepared forged documents of the suit
property and represented himself to be the owner of the same
thereby acknowledging their deficiency in the title over the suit
property. Ld. Counsel further argues that plaintiff has submitted
-- 1 of 2 --
in para no. 22 of the plaint that construction was being carried
out by the defendant at the suit property which shows that the
suit property is not in the possession of the plaintiff. Thus, ld.
Counsel would argue that relief (A) claimed by the plaintiff to
injunct the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession of
suit property is directly contradictory to their own submission in
the plaint. Ld. Counsel further argues that the suit is also barred
in the light of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy Judgment
because the ownership of the plaintiff is under the cloud by the
very fact that defendant has raised the claim of ownership on the
basis of equivalent documents i.e. GPA and ATS on which the
plaintiff also relies thus Ld. Counsel would argue that a
comprehensive suit should have been filed by the plaintiff instead
of the one for injunction simpliciter. For this reason also Ld.
Counsel argues that the instant suit is not maintainable.
Heard.
As far as the application u/O 39 Rule 2(A) CPC is
concerned the arguments on the same would be heard on NDOH.
It is clarified that no further opportunity for arguments shall be
granted to any party. It is further clarified that this direction
should not be interpreted to mean that the application u/O 7 Rule
11 CPC has been prejudged and dismissed as the apprehension of
the same has been expressed by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
List the matter for orders on application u/O 7 Rule
11 CPC on 01.06.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/08.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --