Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 23
CS SCJ 595/24
KIMTI LAL Vs. RAJINDER
18.08.2026
Present : Mr. RK Paliwal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. (through VC)
Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 to 4.
Ld. Proxy counsel for applicant Mr. Anuj Kumar.
Defendant no.5 is already deleted from array of parties vide order dated
28.10.2024.
Let the amended memo of parties be filed by the plaintiff on or before next
date of hearing.
Matter is listed for arguments on the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
filed by one Mr. Anuj Kumar on the ground that he is the son of landlord Smt. Rajni
Saxena.
It is the case of the applicant that as per the Will of Smt. Rajni Saxena dated
10.01.2024, the applicant was the only legal heir and claimant of the suit property. It is
further stated that the applicant has the right, title and interest to get rent after the death of
his mother.
The application is opposed on behalf of defendants whereby it is
inter-alia
stated that plaintiff has himself not joined the applicant at the relevant time and there is no
question of the applicant being impleaded at this juncture.
Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
Ld. Counsel for applicant has simply argued that as mother of the applicant
was the landlord and she has passed away after executing the Will dated 10.01.2024 in his
favour, he is a necessary party to the present suit.
-- 1 of 3 --
The application is strongly opposed on the ground that the suit is not for
recovery of rent or regarding landlord and tenant relationship.
Perusal of the record reveals that the suit is filed under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 alleging forceful dispossession at behest of defendants no. 1 to 4,
without due process of law. The plaintiff in such suit has averred about the filing of
eviction petition by Smt. Rajni against him, yet he has not impleaded Smt. Rajni for the
reason that the dispossession is alleged against defendants no. 1 to 4. In any event, plaintiff
is the
dominus litus and he has chosen to not seek any relief against the applicant.
In these circumstances, it does not appear that the applicant is a necessary
or a proper party, without whose presence, the present suit cannot be effectively or
properly adjudicated.
Needless to say, the suit is not between the landlord and tenant and is
simply filed
qua the allegation that defendants have forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff on
18.04.2024 from the suit property.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the application that the applicant is a
proper or necessary party to the present suit.
The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is accordingly dismissed and
disposed off.
It is submitted that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC
is pending adjudication, whereby the plaintiff has prayed for injunction restraining
defendants no. 1 to 4 from creating any third party interest in the suit property i.e. D-1011,
Ground Floor, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033 as shown in red colour in the site plan.
Mr. Pankaj Bagga, Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 to 4 submits that all the
defendants were already restrained by this court vide order dated 24.08.2024. He has
further submitted that he has no objection if such injunction is continued throughout the
trial.
Accordingly in these circumstances, the injunction issued vide order dated
24.08.2024 is made absolute throughout the present trial and the defendants are restrained
-- 2 of 3 --
from creating any third party interest in the aforesaid suit property, till the disposal of the
present suit.
Application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is
allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Pleadings are complete. On the basis of pleadings, following issues are
framed:
1) Whether the plaintiff was forcefully dispossessed by the defendants from the suit
property, as alleged in the plaint and if so, whether he is entitled for possession under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPP.
3) Relief.
No other issue arises or is pressed for.
Plaintiff is directed to file list of witnesses and supply copy in advance to
Ld. Counsel for defendant/ defendant. Copy of affidavits of evidence be also supplied
atleast 15 days prior to the next date of hearing to Ld. Counsel for defendant/defendant.
Re-notify for P.E. on 03.11.2026.
PW as well as Ld. Counsel for defendant shall remain present in person on
the NDOH for PE.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --