Interim Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 1/10
CS DJ 11/24
SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER
IMPROVEMENT BOARD
25.02.2026
Present: Sh. Karan Arora, LAC for the plaintiff.
Sh. Munesh Kumar, Counsel for the defendant no.1.
Sh. Madan Kumar Jha, Counsel for the defendant
no.2.
Sh. Mandeep Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. B. N.
Gaur, counsel for applicant Sh. Vishnu Pratap Singh.
Counsel for the defendant no.1 presses his
application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC dated 11.07.2025.
FIRST ARGUMENT
1. It is argued by the counsel for the defendant that since, Smt.
Atula Devi was merely original allottee, no title can be conferred
by her upon Smt. Indra Devi i.e. mother of the plaintiff.
2. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff contends that Smt.
Atula Devi is the original allottee and plaintiff got possession
through her. Possession can only be taken back as per law.
SECOND ARGUMENT
3. It is argued by the counsel for the defendant no.1 that
perusal of paragraph 7 of the plaint dated Nil supported by affidavit
dated 26.12.2023 shows that plaintiff admitted dispossession. He
-- 1 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 2/10
even admitted that locks were put in the suit premises. It is further
argued that it is case of the plaintiff that persons who came to
dispossess the plaintiff on 18.12.2023 did not show copy of order
for vacation of premises which shows that defendant no.1 is
disputing the title of the plaintiff.
4. Reliance is placed upon the case titled as
Anathula Sudhakar
vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on 25.03.2008 to contend that when there
is cloud on the title and plaintiff is not in possession, it is necessary
for the plaintiff to file suit for Declaration, Possession and
Injunction.
5. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff argues that there is no
dispute with the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in this case, however, since, plaintiff is in lawful possession.
Dispossession is threatened, a simplicitor suit for Injunction will
Lie.
6. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff states that plaint is to be
read as a whole. In para 8 of the plaint, it is specifically averred that
wife of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not vacate the suit property.
Further, in para no.7 of the plaint itself, it is averred that movable
articles of the plaintiff, are lying in the suit premises.
7. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff
can only be dispossessed as per due process of law.
THIRD ARGUMENT
-- 2 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 3/10
8. It is argued by the counsel for the defendant no.1 that in
para 3 of the plaint, plaintiff has averred that original allottee was
one Atula Devi. Suit property was purchased by mother of the
plaintiff Smt. Indra Devi from original allottee vide Agreement to
Sell, Will, GPA, Affidavit.
9. Reliance is placed upon case titled as
Shakeel Ahmed vs.
Syed Akhlaq Hussain decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on 01.11.2023 to contend that Agreement to Sell, GPA,
Affidavit do not confer legally enforceable right to approach a court
of law.
10. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff argues that there is no
dispute with the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in this case, however, counsel for the plaintiff states that he
can prove the Will in favour of his mother, as per law.
SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT :
11. Instead of referring to all the judicial precedent laid down by
the apex court in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the case of Saleem
Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in(2003) 1 SCC 557. ,the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while discussing the factors to be considered by the Courts in
exercise of power under ORDER 7 Rule 11 CPC , has held that:
“12. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under:
“
Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases—
(
a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(
b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the
-- 3 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 4/10
valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails
to do so;
(
c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the
plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped,
and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to
supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be
fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(
d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law;
(
e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(
f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of Rule Provided that the time fixed by the
court for the correction of the valuation or supplying
of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended
unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied
that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or
supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may
be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal
to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the
plaintiff.”
13. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear
that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for
deciding an application thereunder are the averments
in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit
— before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the
conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an
-- 4 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 5/10
application under clauses (
a) and (
d) of Rule 11 of
Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane;
the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage,
therefore, a direction to file the written statement
without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity
touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.
The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of
the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as
procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did
not advert to these aspects …….. ”
FINDINGS
14. Perusal of the record shows that plaintiff has filed the
present suit for mandatory injunction restraining defendants and
their agents etc. from dispossessing plaintiff from suit property.
Suit property is admeasuring around 26 sq. yards bearing house no.
74, E Block, JJ Colony, Sector 25, Rajapur Kalan Rohini,
Delhi-110085. (hereinafter referred to as suit property).
15. Perusal of the record shows that it is case of the plaintiff
that original allottee of suit property was Smt. Atula Devi. Mother
of the plaintiff namely Smt. Indira Devi purchased the suit property
vide registered GPA, Agreement to sell, Will, Affidavit, possession
letter from Smt. Atula Devi. Smt. Indira Devi died on 31.12.2019.
16. Perusal of the record shows that it is the case of the plaintiff
that on 18.12.2023 some persons claiming to be officials from
-- 5 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 6/10
respondent came. They harassed the plaintiff's wife. Plaintiff was
beaten by Satish Rana, beat police official. Abusive language was
used. Plaintiff was attempted to be forcibly evicted from suit
property. The present suit was filed seeking direction that
defendants may not dispossess the plaintiff.
FINDING ON FIRST ARGUMENT
17. The submissions on behalf of the defendant No.1 that since,
Smt. Atula Devi was merely original allottee, no title can be
conferred by her upon Smt. Indra Devi i.e. mother of the plaintiff,
so, plaint be dismissed, are without merits. These submissions are
rejected :
18. At this stage, only averments of plaint are to be seen. It is
case of the plaintiff that Smt. Atula Devi is the original allottee and
plaintiff got possession through her. Possession can only be taken
back as per law.
19. Even otherwise, suit for Injunction simpliciter is concerned
with possession. Issue of title is not directly and substantially in
issue.
FINDING ON SECOND ARGUMENT
20. Submissions on behalf of the defendant no.1 that perusal of
paragraph 7 of the plaint dated Nil supported by affidavit dated
26.12.2023 shows that plaintiff admitted dispossession. He even
admitted that locks were put in the suit premises. Further arguments
that it is case of the plaintiff that persons who came to dispossess
-- 6 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 7/10
the plaintiff on 18.12.2023 did not show copy of order for vacation
of premises which shows that defendant no.1 is disputing the title
of the plaintiff, so, plaint be rejected, are without merits.
21. Reliance placed upon the case titled as
Anathula Sudhakar
vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on 25.03.2008 to contend that when there
is cloud on the title and plaintiff is not in possession, it is necessary
for the plaintiff to file suit for Declaration, Possession and
Injunction. Submissions that plaint be rejected, are without merits
as :
22. There is no dispute with the law laid down by the
Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the above case
(Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
Buchi Reddy supra). However, since, plaintiff is in lawful
possession. Dispossession is threatened, a simpliciter suit for
Injunction will Lie.
23. Relevant part of decision in case titled as Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 is as under :
“ …..21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for
prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as
under :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does
not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with
or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the
plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of
possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the
plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is
sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
-- 7 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 8/10
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with
possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and
substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be
decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in
cases where de jure possession has to be established on the
basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites,
the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for
consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be
possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for
injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and
appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied
as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v.
Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ). Where the averments
regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no
issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or
examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit
for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and
issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and
law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the
remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title,
instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and
appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead
evidence, if the matter involved is simple and
straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue
regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases,
are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will
not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having
clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be
driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit
for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or
wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his
property. The court should use its discretion carefully to
identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where
it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive
declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case…..”.
24. Plaint is to be read as a whole. Perusal of the record shows
that in para 8 of the plaint, it is specifically averred that wife of the
-- 8 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 9/10
plaintiff and the plaintiff did not vacate the suit property. Further,
in para no.7 of the plaint itself, it is averred that movable articles of
the plaintiff, are lying in the suit premises.
25. It is rightly argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the
plaintiff can only be dispossessed as per due process of law.
FINDING ON THIRD ARGUMENT
26. Submissions on behalf of the defendant no.1 that in para 3
of the plaint, plaintiff has averred that original allottee was one
Atula Devi. Suit property was purchased by mother of the plaintiff
Smt. Indra Devi from original allottee vide Agreement to Sell, Will,
GPA, Affidavit. Further submissions that on the basis of these
documents, no title can be conferred, so, plaint be rejected, are
without merits.
26. Reliance placed upon case titled as
Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed
Akhlaq Hussain decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
on 01.11.2023 to contend that Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit
do not confer legally enforceable right to approach a court of law.
Submissions on behalf of the defendant no.1 that plaint be rejected,
are without merits. These submissions are rejected as :
28. There is no dispute with the law laid down by the
Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in this case (
Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed
Akhlaq Hussain supra) , however, plaintiff can prove the Will in
favour of his mother, as per law. Will can confer title. Perusal
paragraph 3 of the plaint shows that plaintiff has averred that
original documents have been misplaced. Plaintiff must be given
-- 9 of 10 --
CS DJ 11/24 SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD 10/10
an opportunity to prove his case as per law by leading secondary
evidence. At this stage, averments in the plaint, are to be taken as
correct.
29. Application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC dated 11.07.2025, is without
merits. Same is dismissed.
30. Now, to come up for disposal of application u/o 1 rule 10
CPC dated 28.08.2025, filed by applicant Vishnu Pratap Singh, on
13.03.2026.
(VIKRAM BALI)
DISTRICT JUDGE-2/NORTH/
ROHINI COURT/DELHI/25.02.2026
-- 10 of 10 --