Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 15 CS SCJ 1016/25 PUNEET TRIPATHI Vs. SHILPI MITTAL
04.10.2025
Present: Sh. Vijay Malik and Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ld.
Counsels for plaintiff.
Ms. Vasu Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant
No.3/ MCD through VC with JE Sh. Vimal
Kumar.
1. A report has been placed on record by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD), wherein it is stated that the property
bearing no. E-1/86, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-85 was booked in the year
2013. Pursuant thereto, show cause notices under Sections 343 and 344
of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act were issued on 29.11.2013,
followed by the passing of a demolition order dated 20.12.2013. It is
further submitted that although a demolition programme was scheduled
for 16.06.2016, the same could not be executed owing to residential
occupation of the first and second floors.
2. Subsequently, a sealing order was passed on
15.05.2017, and the property was sealed. A communication was also
addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahbad Dairy,
for lodging of an FIR. It is further stated that a vacation notice under
Section 349 of the DMC Act was issued on 29.09.2025, and on
01.10.2025, the RCC projection was demolished and the main entrance
gate of the second floor was sealed. The SHO, PS Shahbad Dairy, has
been requested to maintain watch and ward over the premises to
prevent any further unauthorised construction.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that despite
the aforementioned actions taken by MCD, the defendants continue to
engage in unauthorised construction, and accordingly prays for
restraint against such activities and presses for his application under
order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC.
4. On a query posed by the Court, Sh. Vimal Kumar,
Junior Engineer, MCD, submits that the suit property stands
-- 1 of 2 --
(2)
constructed up to the second floor, and unauthorised construction exists
in the form of projections on the first floor and the entire second floor.
He further states that additional demolition action shall be undertaken
in due course.
5. Despite service upon defendant nos. 1 and 2, no
appearance has been marked on their behalf despite repeated calls.
6. Having considered the submissions made and the
report filed by MCD, which clearly reflects that the property in
question was booked, inspected, and subjected to partial demolition
and sealing, this Court finds it appropriate to restrain defendant no.1
from carrying out any further unauthorised construction in the suit
property till the final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the application
filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC stands
disposed of.
7. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as a finding on the merits of the case.
8. The defendants are directed to file their written
statement with advance copy to the opposite party.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti.
List the matter for further proceedings on 23.12.2025.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North, Rohini Courts,Delhi/04.10.2025
-- 2 of 2 --