Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 477/24
RUSHALI KHERA Vs. TANUSHREE SACHDEVA
ORDER
06.05.2024
1. Vide this order, I will decide application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Plaintiff.
2. The reliefs claimed by way of the application are two fold: firstly,
that the Defendants be restrained from putting their locks over the
suit property and secondly, that they be restrained from creating
any third party interest in the suit property, i.e., B132, Derawal
Nagar, Model Town, Delhi09.
3. Law as regards interlocutory injunctions is no longer res integra
and the Plaintiff has to prove existence of a prima facie case in his
favour. Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt
but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence
which is led in support of the same were believed. It includes the
consideration of there being a probability of Plaintiff obtaining
the relief at the conclusion of the trial on the basis of the material
placed before the Court. The expression 'Balance of convenience'
means the comparative mischief or inconvenience caused to the
parties whereas irreparable loss would mean a loss which cannot
be compensated by money.
4. Now coming to the merits of the present case, since the
Defendants have undertaken not to create any third party interest
in the suit property with the statement of their main counsel being
-- 1 of 3 --
2
CS SCJ 477/24
RUSHALI KHERA Vs. TANUSHREE SACHDEVA
recorded in this regard, the only question which requires
adjudication is regarding the relief that the Defendants be
restrained from putting their locks over the suit property. It
would be appropriate to state that the present suit has been filed
by the Plaintiff in the capacity of a coowner, as reflected from
para 15 of the plaint and a fact reiterated by Ld. Counsel for
defendant during arguments.
5. It is settled law that a coowner has an interest in the whole
property and also in every parcel of it. A coowner also has the
right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not
inconsistent with the rights of the other coowners (Santram
Naginaram Vs. Dayaram Naginaram AIR 1961 Punjab 528).
6. Now reverting to the merits of the present case and applying the
aforesaid ratio to the present case, the right of ingress and egress
to a joint property is one of the essential rights which any co
owner has over joint property and none of the coowners can be
allowed to curtail the said right by placing locks upon the
property or otherwise. Since the property in question is a joint
property, every coowner has the right to use and visit the
property without the said right being restricted by any other co
owner. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiff has been
able to prove a strong prima facie case in her favour. The balance
-- 2 of 3 --
3
CS SCJ 477/24
RUSHALI KHERA Vs. TANUSHREE SACHDEVA
of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and this Court is
of the considered opinion that irreparable loss would be caused to
the Plaintiff if the present application is not allowed.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and Defendants
are hereby restrained from placing their locks over the suit
property so as to restrain ingress / egress of the Plaintiff over the
same till the final disposal of the suit. Application is disposed of
accordingly.
8. It is reiterated that nothing expressed above would tantamount to
any comment on the merits of the case.
(PRITU RAJ)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/06.05.2024
-- 3 of 3 --