Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 30 CS SCJ 633/23
Premita Ekka Vs. Man Bhawan Ekka
04.09.2025
Present: Sh. Hitesh Pandey, counsel for plaintiff (through
VC).
Plaintiff in person.
Defendant in person namely Man Bhawan Ekka and
Nirali Ekka.
1. By present order I shall decide the application under
under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 (herein
after referred as ‘CPC’) moved on behalf of Defendants no.1 to 4
seeking rejection of present plaint.
2. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant that the
plaintiff has not sought relief of possession, which is an equally
efficacious remedy for the plaintiff. It is submitted that the
present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC as simpliciter
suit for injunction is not maintainable in view of the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar versus P Buchi
Reddy AIR 2008 SCC 2033. It is argued that the plaintiff is
neither the owner nor in the possession of the suit property. It is
also argued that the plaintiff has not paid requisite court fees
hence the plaint is also liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule
11 (c) of CPC.
3. Per contra it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
that plaintiff is in possession for which several documents have
been filed by the plaintiff. It is also argued that plaintiff gave a
written complain to local police regarding throwing of household
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
items of plaintiff by defendants. It is argued that present suit is
maintainable against defendants.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking
relief of permanent injunction against defendants for restringing
them from dispossessing the plaintiff from Ground Floor,
A2/742, Block-A2, Resettlement colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi -
110042 (herein after referred as ‘suit property’). It is averred in
the plaint that plaintiff provided financial assistance of ₹2 lakhs
to her father for the construction of the property where in suit
property is located. It is averred that after completion of
construction, the plaintiff was allowed to reside in the suit
property and the father of the plaintiff gave assurance that title
deed will be executed in her favor. It is averred that on
02.06.2023 the defendants removed the household articles of the
plaintiff and put their lock on the suit property consequently the
plaintiff made a police complaint on the 03.06.2023.
6. It is clear from the plaint that father of the plaintiff is
the owner of suit property and plaintiff and defendants are
licensee in the property as they have no independent right to
reside in the suit property. It is settled law that a licensee can not
claim injunction against true owner, however, a license can claim
injunction against another licensee if dispossessed without due
process of law. In present case, the plaintiff is only seeking
injunction against defendant who are licensees in the suit
property and not against her father who is owner of suit property.
For the relief of injunction against co-licensee there is no need to
claim title or possession hence present case is not hit by the dicta
of Anathula Sudhakar supra. Whether the plaintiff is in
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
possession or not can only be decided by way of evidence which
is not possible at this stage. On comprehensive reading of plaint,
same discloses cause of action and at the same time suit of
plaintiff is not barred by any law. So far as the valuation of suit is
concerned, same has been correctly valued by the plaintiff as
only relief of injunction has been sought.
7. In view of the above observation, present application
is herby dismissed.
Put up for framing of issues on 19.11.2025.
(Ajay Singh Parihar)
ACJ-cum-ARC/North
Rohini Court/04.09.2025
-- 3 of 3 --