Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 CS SCJ 467/26
SANJAY GUPTA Vs. MANOJ AGGARWAL
20.08.2026
Present: Shri Ravinder Malik, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Shri Ankur, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1
(Through VC).
Summons issued to D-2 to D-5 received back
served.
Between the intervening dates, WS alongwith
application for condonation of delay in filing WS and reply to the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf
of defendant no. 1. Copy supplied.
Compliance affidavit in terms of order dated
17.04.2026 u/O XXXIX R 3 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff,
however, as per the affidavit and postal receipts annexed
alongwith the affidavit, copy of the order dated 17.04.2026 and
copy of the plaint alognwith accompanying documents was sent
to the defendants on 22.04.2026. Thus, the plaintiff had not
complied with provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 submits that the
property in respect of which the present suit for permanent
injunction has been filed, was acquired by DDA. It is further
submitted that against the order of acquisition, a writ petition was
filed by the plaintiff in Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was
dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.02.2020 and that this
fact has been concealed by the plaintiff. The copy of order dated
Cont.........../-2
-- 1 of 3 --
::2::
06.02.2020, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court is annexed
alongwith WS of defendant no. 1. It is further submitted that the
sale deed on which the plaintiff is relying does not mention the
description of the property and accordingly, the property cannot
be identified from the sale deed. On this ground, Ld. counsel for
defendant no. 1 pressed that interim orders be vacated.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has
received the WS of defendant no. 1 alongwith reply and
documents today itself and he seeks some time to verify the same
and to make submissions with regard to arguments made by
counsel for defendant no. 1 today.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
The copy of order dated 06.02.2020 of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in WP (C) 7157/2018 also perused.
The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed against the
acquisition proceedings in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 2
biswa, comprising khasra no. 24/23, situated in the revenue estate
of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, by one Mr. Sanjay Gupta. The
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the petition is not
maintainable on merits as well as ground of delay and latches and
accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Now, the present suit for permanent injunction has
been filed by the plaintiff i.e. Mr. Sanjay Gupta claiming himself
to be the owner of property i.e. Plot measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa,
comprising khasra no. 24/23, situated in the revenue estate of
Village Shahbad Daulatpur. Prima facie, it appears that the
property which was subject matter of the aforesaid Writ Petition
Cont.........../-3
-- 2 of 3 --
::3::
before Hon’ble Delhi High Court is same as the property for
which the present suit has been filed since the area of land and
Khasra number are same in both the cases. Furthermore, the sale
deed dated 08.04.1992 annexed alongwith the plaint does not
disclose as to where the land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa is
situated in Khasra no. 24/23 in the revenue estate of Village
Shahbad Daulatpur.
In view of the aforesaid observations and non-
compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, the Court considers it
fit to vacate the interim order passed vide order dated
17.04.2026. Accordingly, the interim orders stand vacated. The
plaintiff will be at liberty to clarify the aforesaid issue in his
arguments on application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
The plaintiff is also at liberty to file reply to the
application of defendant for condonation of delay in filing of
WS.
Put up for arguments on the application for
condonation of delay as well as arguments on the application
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, on 04.12.2026.
Copy of this order be given dasti, as prayed.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/20.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --