Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 36 CS SCJ 102/24
ASHA AGGARWAL Vs. ANOOP SINGH
13.07.2026
Present: Shri Neeraj Rana, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
Matter is listed for orders on application u/o 39 rule
1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
Vide separate order, the application u/o 39 rule 1
and 2 CPC stands dismissed.
Put up for reply / arguments on application u/o 7
rule 14 CPC on 24.10.2026.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/13.07.2026
-- 1 of 6 --
-1-
36 CS SCJ 102/24
ASHA AGGARWAL Vs. ANOOP SINGH
ORDER
13.07.2026
1. Vide this order, the court shall decide the application u/o
39 rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff praying for interim
injunction thereby restraining the defendants from forcefully and
illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that vide registered Sale deed
dt. 03.02.2020, the plaintiff purchased the property i.e. a total of
6 Bighas in 120/727 share in Agricultural land measuring 36
Bighas, 07 Biswas out of khasra no. 157/11 min (3-03), 12 min
(3-16), 19min (4-12) 20min(4-08), 22min(3-11),158/17(4-16) in
the revenue estate of Village Bawana Delhi-110039 from M/s
Jindal Promoter Pvt. Ltd and after paying complete sale
consideration, plaintiff are in physical possession of the suit
property. It is contended by plaintiff that in October 2023, the
defendants approached the plaintiff and asked him to vacate the
suit property claiming themselves to be the owner on the basis of
WILL executed by grandfather of defendants. It is pertinent to
mention here that Late Shri Sher Singh was a grandfather of the
defendants, who was also allegedly the previous owner of suit
property bearing khasra no. 157 and 158, Khanjawala Road,
Village Bawana, Delhi. The plaintiff has claimed that the
defendants have been continuously threatening the plaintiff to
take forceful possession of the suit property and on this ground it
is prayed that interim injunction may be granted in favour of
plaintiff.
-- 2 of 6 --
-2-
3. Per contra, the defendants claim that they are in possession
of suit property and they are cultivating the said agricultural land
(suit property) alongwith their family for their livelihood. The
defendants have further claimed that Late Shri Sher Singh,
grandfather of defendants and owner of suit property, executed a
will dated 02.07.1970 in the favour of defendants wherein he
transferred all his rights title and ownership to the defendants,
thereby excluding his sons from inheriting the property, and after
the death of grandfather of the defendants, the ownership of the
suit property devolved upon the defendants. It is also contended
that the sons of Late Shri Sher Singh illegally sold a suit property
to M/s Jindal Promoters Pvt. Ltd and the defendants came to
know about this fact in May 2022 after which they filed a
criminal complaint against M/s Jindal Promoters Pvt. Ltd and
sons of Late sh. Sher Singh and also file a suit for permanent and
mandatory injunction against M/s Jindal Promoters Pvt. Ltd with
CS SCJ No. 1058/2022 titled as Anoop Singh and Ors Vs. M/s
Jindal Promoters Pvt. Ltd and another. It is argued by the Ld.
Counsel for the defendants that the possession of the plaintiff in
the suit property is disputed and a matter of trial and thus, no
interim injunction should be granted at this stage.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. It is settled law that while granting an interlocutory
injunction, the Court has to consider whether the plaintiff has a
prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in favour
of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff would suffer an
irreparable injury, if the prayer for interlocutory injunction is
disallowed.
-- 3 of 6 --
-3-
6. The law as regards the grant of interlocutory injunctions is
no longer res-integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S Gujarat
Bottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors 1995 AIR
2372 has laid the following tests which ought to be fulfilled
while deciding the same:
“The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the
pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise
of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the
court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the
following tests - (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case;
(ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the
plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an
irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is
disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory
injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the
legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are
both contested and uncertain and its alleged violation are both
contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are
established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of
interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of
injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty
could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to
protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for
which he could not be adequately compensated in damages
recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his
favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to
be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to
be protected against injury resulting from his having been
-- 4 of 6 --
-4-
prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could
not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need
against another and determine where the 'balance of
convenience' lies.”
7. Therefore, while exercising the discretionary power given
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the Court had to satisfy that the
plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour and that balance of
convenience also lies with the plaintiff and plaintiff would suffer
irreparable injuries which cannot be compensated if his prayer is
disallowed.
8. In the present case, the plaintiff claimed title on the basis
of registered sale deed. However, the defendants have questioned
the very validity of the plaintiff’s title by relying upon an alleged
Will executed by Shri Sher Singh in their favour. It is an
admitted fact that the suit property forms part of an agricultural
land. In case of an agricultural land, the possession is ordinarily
proved by Revenue records and evidences of cultivation rather
than by title documents alone. In the present case, apart from
copy of the Sale Deed, there are no revenue or cultivation records
to show the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In
these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the prima
facie, plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit
property and consequently have failed to make out a prima facie
case in her favour. Since, no prima facie case is made out, it is
not necessary to consider balance of convenience or irreparable
injury.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application of
plaintiff u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC stands dismissed. However, it
-- 5 of 6 --
-5-
is clarified that the observations made herein shall not be
construed has an expression on the merits of the case.
Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/13.07.2026
-- 6 of 6 --