Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 8 CS SCJ 1085/24
AJIT PAL Vs. REKHA BHAYANA AND ORS
`
27.05.2025
Present: Sh. ML Gupta, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Mohit Monga, Ld. Counsel for defendant-1,6 and 7.
Sh. NK Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant-2.
Ms. Sanjeevani Sethi, Ld. Proxy Counsel for defendant-3 to
5 (Through VC).
None for the defendant-8 and 9.
WS along with reply to application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the Defendant-2. Same is taken on
record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the opposite party.
WS filed on behalf of the Defendant-1, 6 and 7. Same is
taken on record. Let copy of the same be supplied to the opposite party.
It is submitted on behalf of the Defendant-3 to 5 that they
have not received legible copy of plaint.
Submissions heard on application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Time is sought by Ld. Counsel for defendant-1, 6 and
7 to file reply to application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
Both the parties are directed to file written submissions.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that ad interim
stay may be granted for protection of his possession as his case will be
infructuous in case he is dispossessed by the bailiff in execution
proceeding pending before the Court of Ld. DJ-01, North, Rohini. The
same is opposed by Ld. Counsel for defendant-1, 6 and 7 on the ground
-- 1 of 2 --
that by way of the present application, the plaintiff is seeking stay of
execution proceedings. It is further submitted that a similar application
for stay of execution proceedings is pending before Hon'ble Delhi High
Court.
Heard. Perusal of the case file shows that the plaintiff has
relied upon agreement between him and Sh. Ashok Bhayana wherein
Sh. Ashok Bhayana has stated that he is handing over the possession of
the suit property to the plaintiff. Admittedly, Sh. Ashok Bhayana is not
the owner of the suit property. In the opinion of the Court, the same does
not establish possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
Furthermore, if the plaintiff seeks to be protected against dispossession
in execution proceedings pending before the Court of Ld. DJ-01, North,
Rohini, he has an alternative remedy to file objections before that Court.
Thus, in view of the Court, since the plaintiff has failed to prima facie
establish his possession in the suit property, the Court is not inclined to
grant ad interim injunction so as to restrain the Defendants from
interferring in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.
Be taken up for further arguments on 08.07.2025.
(ANKITA BHATIA)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/27.05.2025
-- 2 of 2 --