Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 19 CS SCJ 221/25 NANDLAL Vs. OM PRAKASH
08.06.2026
Present: Ms. Shweta S. Kumar Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
Sh. R.K. Bharti Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.1.
Sh. Bhishm Singh Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.2.
1. It is noted that two applications filed on behalf
of defendant i.e. one u/o I rule 10 CPC and another u/s 151
CPC are pending disposal.
2. In its application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
defendant no.1 contends that the suit property belonged to
his late father, Sh. Lala Hari Chand, who died intestate
leaving behind five children and his widow. It is urged that
all legal heirs of Sh. Lala Hari Chand are necessary parties
to the present proceedings, and that the suit is not
maintainable in their absence.
3. In reply, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the apprehension of dispossession is only
against defendant no.1, who alone has advanced threats. It
is argued that no relief is sought against the other heirs, and
hence their impleadment is unnecessary.
4. Having heard submissions, it is noted that the
present suit is one for injunction restraining defendant no.1
from forcibly entering and dispossessing the plaintiff from
the suit property. The other relief is directed against
defendant no.2, Tata Power DDL. In these circumstances,
-- 1 of 3 --
the other heirs of Sh. Lala Hari Chand are neither necessary
nor proper parties. It is settled law that the plaintiff, being
dominus litis, cannot be compelled to litigate against whom
no relief is claimed. Accordingly, the application under
Order I Rule 10 CPC stands dismissed being devoid of any
merits.
5. By way of the application under Section 151
CPC, defendant no.1 seeks recall of order dated 31.05.2025
whereby the right of defendant no.1 to file written statement
was closed.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for
defendant no.1 that the written statement could not be filed
as he was advised that the suit of the plaintiff was not
maintainable without impleadment of other heirs.
7. As per record, summons of the suit were
served upon defendant no.1 on 12.03.2025. The right to file
written statement was closed on 31.05.2025 upon expiry of
the statutory period. The plea that written statement was not
filed owing to alleged defects in the plaintiff’s case cannot
constitute a ground to recall the order. The argument is akin
to asserting that filing of written statement is optional if the
defendant perceives any lacunae in the plaint. Such
contention, in the considered view of this court, is
untenable.
8. Further, the present application was filed
belatedly on 09.12.2025, after replication had already been
filed to the written statement of defendant no.2. In view of
the above circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out to
-- 2 of 3 --
recall the order. The application under Section 151 CPC is
devoid of merit and is dismissed.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned
counsel for defendant no.1 as prayed.
10. A report has also been filed on behalf of
defendant no.2 stating that no electricity connection exists
in the suit property at present, and that the plaintiff may
apply for a fresh connection. Copy of the report be supplied
to the plaintiff.
11. Let the matter be listed for consideration on
issues, if any, and for further proceedings on 10.08.2026.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North, Rohini Courts,Delhi/08.06.2026
-- 3 of 3 --