Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 11 CS SCJ 880/23 CHANDER SHEKHARA NAND GIRI Vs.
SHIV CHANDERA GIRI
06.11.2024
Present: Sh. Narender Singh and Sh. Prakash Chauhan Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.
Sh. Nitish Nagar Ld. Proxy Counsel for defendants.
1. No application seeking condonation of delay in filing of
WS has been moved on behalf of defendants. It is noted that
opportunity was granted to the defendant to move the application on
18.03.2024 and despite the said opportunity no such application has
been filed. Accordingly, the defence of the defendant is struck off.
WS is not taken on record.
2. An application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC was moved on
behalf of the plaintiff seeking injunction against the defendants to
the effect that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiff from the suit property till the pendency of the suit and
further to restrain the defendants from disconnecting the essential
supplies. It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a Param
Adyaksh of the suit property and has been residing there since
16.06.2013. It is further stated that the defendants have interfered in
the possession of the plaintiff and have been threatening him to
dispossess him from the suit property i.e. Sri Sanatan Dharam
Bhagwati Mandir situated at Bhai Parmananad Colony, Delhi.
3. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of
defendants stating that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as
plaintiff has not sought any relief of declaration. It is further stated
that the plaintiff has taken false stand by stating that he was made
head by Swami Vishnu Devanand whereas in his police complaint
dated 07.08.2023, he had stated that he was made head after the
Contd…..2/-
-- 1 of 3 --
(2)
death of Swami Vishnu Devanand. It is prayed that relief as sought
be not granted.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. It is a matter of record that on 06.09.2023, it was
submitted on behalf of defendants that they had no objections to the
prayer of the plaintiff to the effect of issuance of direction to the
defendants for not disconnecting the essential service of water and
electricity. This submission of no objection coupled with the
preliminary objection that relief of declaration has not been sought,
implies an acknowledgment that the plaintiff is in possession of the
suit property. Further, during the course of arguments, it is stated by
defendant no.6 and 7 that plaintiff is in possession of First Floor of
the suit property and the defendants are on the ground floor of the
suit property.
6. Though it is not disputed that plaintiff is in possession
of property but it has been disputed that he is not Param-Adhyaksh
but defendant no.1 is Param-Adhyaksha. To show his possession
plaintiff has filed copy of electricity bill which indicate energisation
date as 27.06.2014. The said fact has not been disputed. From the
over all matrix of the facts, it is apparent that there is a prima-facie
case in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience also tilts in
his favour. Further, dispossession from the suit property would
surely cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the
application of the plaintiff U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC stands allowed
and defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from
the suit property till the pendency of the suit without following due
process of law and further from disconnecting essential supplies in
the premises.
Contd…..3/-
-- 2 of 3 --
(3)
7. At this stage, another application U/s 151 CPC has been
moved on behalf of plaintiff seeking directions to the effect that
defendants be restrained from organizing “Srimad Bhagwat Katha
Saptaha Gian Yagya” at the suit property i.e. Sri Sanatan Dharam
Bhagwati Mandir situated at Bhai Parmananad Colony, Delhi. It is
stated that a banner has been placed without stating the name of the
organizers and the defendants in the garb of organizing the aforesaid
Katha are intending to grab the property.
8. After hearing part arguments on the said application,
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he may be allowed to withdraw
the present application as the prime concern of the plaintiff has been
addressed in the form of his application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC
being allowed. Accordingly, the application U/s 151 CPC stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to parties.
10. Be put up for further proceedings on 19.02.2025.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/06.11.2024
-- 3 of 3 --