Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ No. 695/25
Ruchi Gupta versus Neeraj Jain
29.10.2025
Present : Sh. Hari Om and Ms. Preeti, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff with
husband of plaintiff no. 1.
Sh. Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2
(through VC).
Sh. Vikas Gupta, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3.
WS, Reply to application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC,
Reply to application under section 80 CPC along with list of documents
alongwith documents and vakalatnama are filed for defendant no. 2.
It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 that
contents of pen drive stated to be filed on record with plaint by the
plaintiff and the coloured photographs have not been supplied. Attention
is also drawn to the fact that in fact, pen drive is also not placed on
record but only an empty plastic envelope is tagged on a paper on which
pen drive is written.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff did not respond to this, but presses
for disposal of application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Submissions heard. Now put up for consideration at 3 PM.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
29.10.2025(JY)
At 3 PM
Present : None
File is taken up for consideration of application under Order
39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
contd….
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Record is perused carefully.
It shows that summons for settlement of issues could not be
served upon defendant no. 1 as the house was found locked. Plaintiff has
not produced any record which could suggest that construction stated to
be illegal is still going on on first floor possessed by defendant no. 1. In
written statement, it is pleaded by defendant no. 3 that the property
occupied by defendant no. 1 was booked in May 2023 and after due
process, a demolition order under section 343, DMC Act was passed on
12.05.2023 and though, Demolition Action Program was fixed for
various dates, the same could not be taken due to non-availability of
police force. But defendant no. 3 has not admitted that any construction
is still going on in the property occupied by defendant no. 1. So, in
absence of any record suggesting the continuation of construction in flat
no. B3/118, Sunrise Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-85, and
consequent omission on the part of the plaintiff to suggest that suit would
become infructuous if the expert injunction is not granted against
defendant no. 1, this court is not inclined to pass any ad -interim exparte
injunction in respect of the property occupied by defendant no. 1.
Further fresh summons for settlement of issues are directed
to be issued to defendant no. 1 on filing of PF, speed post and AD within
a week. Tracking report be filed by the plaintiff. Ordinary process is also
directed to be fixed in case of unavailability or lock. Process server is
also directed to file the photographs affixing the summons in such case.
Now the court is proceeding to dispose of the application
filed under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC qua defendant no. 2 whereby the
plaintiff has prayed for restraining the defendant from carrying on any
contd….
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
construction against the sanction plan or stop illegal construction in
respect of flat number B3/318, Sunrise Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi-85 till the disposal of the suit.
ORDER
1. Arguments as advanced have been heard in early session and
record is perused.
2. The three golden principles that court should consider while
deciding the application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC are
existence of Prima facie case in favour of applicant, irrepairable
injury likely to be caused to the applicant and balance of
convenience favouring applicant. It is stated in the plaint that
illegal construction is going on on third floor i.e. the floor
occupied by defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 has filed a written
statement wherein it is stated that after the purchase of the flat in
August 2023, the property remained under minor additions /
alterations till February 2025, and no new construction was ever
carried out by defendant no. 2. A long list of additions / alterations
allowed in DDA flats by Government of India is stated in para
number 4 of preliminary submissions in WS and it is stated that
repair, renovation and fit-out work carried out by defendant no. 2
was limited to the extent permitted under clause 2.0.1(d) of
Unified Building Bye-laws (UBBL2016).
3. On the other hand, it is stated by defendant no. 3 in the written
statement that the property of defendant no. 2 was booked for
unauthorized construction in the shape of deviation / excess
coverage against sanctioned building plan on 06.10.2025 and in
contd…
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
continuation of same, a show cause notice was issued to defendant
no. 2 and further actions will be taken as per the provisions of
DMC Act, 1957. Plaintiff has not specified the construction to
enable the court to assess if it was the construction which could be
termed as illegal or if it is repair or renovation within the permitted
limits. Defendant no. 3 has also not produced the specific notice
issued to defendant no. 2 to clarify the nature of construction. So,
in absence of any such material, plaintiff is held unable to establish
continuity of such construction which needs to be restrained by
this court. Otherwise too, the grievance of plaintiff regarding
illegal construction is being looked into by the defendant no. 3,
who is the appropriate authority. The other grievance raised by the
plaintiff in the plaint is that their flat is suffering from seepage due
to such illegal construction and continuous inconvenience in
water flow is being faced but the property / flat of defendant no. 2
is on third floor, so the cause and effect relationship does not get
established. In totality, it has held that a prima facie case in
favour of the plaintiff is not borne out. Consequently, the
application filed by the plaintiff qua defendant no. 2 is dismissed.
Now put up for further proceedings on 18.12.2025.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
29.10.2025(JY)
-- 4 of 4 --