Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 10 CS SCJ 251/25 SWARAN LATA SHARMA AND ORS
Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
19.03.2025
Present: Ms. Niyati Sharma Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
through VC.
Sh. Manoj Mittal and Sh. Ishan Mittal Ld.
Counsels for defendant no.2 and 3.
Ms. Vasu Singh, Ld. Counsel for
defendant/MCD.
Memo of appearance has been filed on behalf of
defendant/MCD.
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the defendant
no.2 and 3. Same is taken on record.
1. An application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC was
made on behalf of the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction
against the defendants from proceeding with the illegal and
unauthorised installation of lift. It is submitted that there are
9 blocks in the society and the RWA has planned to construct
lift in all the blocks. It is stated that the plaintiffs are residing
in Block No.1,2 and 3 and the defendants are planning to
proceed with the construction of lift and the procedure for
construction has already started with respect to block no.8.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.2 and 3 that defendant no.2 in her personal capacity has
applied for permission from the MCD with other members of
her block for lift and connecting bridge and had obtained the
permission from MCD on 15.10.2024. It is further submitted
on behalf of defendant no.2 and 3 that management of the
society has not applied for any sanction from MCD and no
Contd…..2/-
-- 1 of 3 --
(2)
lift or its construction is being done by the management.
3. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1/MCD had also
stated that sanction for construction of lift has been granted
only with respect to block no.8 on the application made by
the residents of that block and at present there is no
information regarding application for grant of permission
pertaining to other blocks.
4. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that
the prayer of application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC may be
limited to the extent that defendants be restrained from
raising any construction with respect to lift and connecting
bridge in front of the block No.1,2 and 3 of Saubhagya
Apartments i.e. the blocks in which the plaintiffs are
residing.
5. Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
has been recorded in this regard.
6. Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.2 and 3 has been recorded to the effect that no
construction with respect to the lift or connecting bridge is
being done by them in front of the blocks of the plaintiff i.e.
block No.1,2 and 3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for
defendant no.1 and 2 that defendants have no concern with
respect to blocks of plaintiffs and it is for the members of
their block to decide and apply for permission for
construction of lift in their respective blocks.
7. In view of the submissions made and statement
of the Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 and 3 as well as
submissions of the Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1, it is
Contd…...3/-
-- 2 of 3 --
(3)
evident that no sanction has been granted in favour of
defendant no.2 and 3 for construction of any lift or
connecting bridge with respect to the block no.1,2 and 3 in
the Saubhagya Apartment Sec.9, Rohini, Delhi. However, as
it is asserted that defendants no.2 is president of mangement
committee and a layout plan has been prepared for
installation of lift in each block, it is in the fitness of things
that defendant no.2 and 3 be directed to not raise any
construction with respect of lift or connecting bridge with
respect to block No.1,2 and 3 of Saubhagya Apartment,
Sec.9, Rohini, Delhi as admittedly no permission from MCD
regarding the said blocks have been taken by them till the
NDOH, till the NDOH. Let WS and reply to application U/o
39 rule 1 and 2 CPC be filed with advance copy to opposite
party.
Defendant no.2 and 3 are directed to appear in
person on the NDOH.
Be put up for further proceedings on
08.04.2025.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/19.03.2025
-- 3 of 3 --