Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 20
CS SCJ 137/25
SMT. POONAM SINGHAL Vs. SMT. MAMTA GUPTA
03.09.2026
Present : Mr. Ishan Mittal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs.
Mr. Anshul Garg, Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.4.
Cost imposed upon the defendants no. 1 and 2 vide order dated 13.05.2026
has not been paid to the plaintiff. Let it be paid during the course of the day against proper
receiving/acknowledgment, failing which the WS of the defendants no. 1 and 2 shall be
taken off the record.
Ahlmad has apprised that the WS of defendants no. 1 and 2 is not present
on record as the hard copy was not filed. He has also apprised that the same was returned
to the Ld. counsel for e-filing as it was not e-filed.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 has drawn the
attention of this court to the order dated 07.08.2025 which
inter-alia records that the WS
of defendants no. 1 and 2 has been filed. Accordingly, defendants no. 1 and 2 shall properly
inspect the judicial record and check the status of their original WS.
Matter is listed for arguments on the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC filed by defendants no. 1 and 2 regarding improper valuation of reliefs for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.
No reply has been filed by the plaintiff and simply, ‘deficient court fees’ of
Rs.100/- has been filed on behalf of plaintiff. Upon query regarding calculation of such
-- 1 of 3 --
deficiency and the provision of law applicable to the reliefs claimed in the suit, Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff has not given any answer.
Ld. Counsel for applicant has
inter-alia argued that prayer clause (h)
qua
declaration has to be valued at the consideration value in the sale deeds of the defendants
no. 1 and 2. A query was raised to him as to under what provision of law is such valuation
on the basis of sale deeds is required. He has also failed to give any response.
Both the counsels, for applicant as well as plaintiff have sought
adjournment for clarification on valuation of such relief for the purpose of court fees as
well as jurisdiction.
Several arguments were heard on the aspect of the other relief prayed for in
the plaint. The primary grievance pf the plaintiff is that despite him having 50% rights in
the stilt parking in the property in question, the private defendants are not letting him
utilize the same and are making commercial use of such stilt parking.
Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 has clarified that by virtue of the
sale deed dated 14.06.2014 in favour of defendant no.1 and by virtue of sale deed dated
14.06.2014 in favour of defendant no.2, the entire stilt parking is owned by defendants no.
1 and 2 exclusively. He has further apprised that even though the plaintiff sought
declaration against such sale deeds and such declaration was allowed vide ex-parte
judgment dated 12.03.2024 passed by Ld. ACJ (North), Rohini, it has been set aside vide
order dated 01.03.2025 by the very same court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. However,
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that review against such order dated 01.03.2025 is still
pending adjudication. Therefore, it appears that as on date by virtue of the sale deeds,
prima facie, plaintiff may not have any legal rights in the stilt parking.
In view of such admitted factual scenario since as on date the plaintiff does
not have any legal rights in the stilt parking, further query was put to the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff as to how the present suit is maintainable, unless such sale deeds are
modified/rectified/cancelled.
-- 2 of 3 --
However, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has again sought adjournment on such
aspect.
In the opinion of this court, unless the plaintiff shows some right, title or
interest in the stilt parking, the reliefs as prayed for, may not be granted in his favour due
to lack of any legal rights.
Be adjourned for arguments and disposal of the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC and for arguments on the point of maintainability for 30.10.2026.
The concerned AE of defendant no.3 shall remain present in person on the
NDOH alongwith the action taken report and photographs/orders/notices/circulars issued
by MCD for the alleged improper use, failing which appropriate cost shall be imposed
upon defendant no.3/MCD.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
03.09.2026
-- 3 of 3 --