Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 12
CS SCJ 1041/23
AVNISH KHURANA Vs. RAM CHANDER
10.08.2026
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 alongwith defendant no.1.
Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 (through VC)
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3/MCD.
Defendant no.1 shall deposit the pending cost during the course of the day
and receipt be filed thereof, failing which it shall be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.
Perusal of the record reveals that the only relief which the plaintiff is
pressing is for possession of the alleged tenanted premises. However, he has prayed for
mandatory injunction in the plaint and he has valued the plaint accordingly at Rs.260/-
for relief of mandatory injunction.
Bare perusal of the plaint shows that the suit is nothing but for recovery of
possession by landlord against the tenant
qua the alleged tenanted premises which were
allegedly let out for a rent of Rs.17000/- per month.
In these circumstances, the plaintiff is required to value the relief of
possession against the tenant in terms of Section 7 (xi) of the Court Fees Act and pray
for proper relief of possession
qua the tenanted premises.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, upon the query regarding prayer for mandatory
injunction, submits that it is a routine practice to seek possession in the form of
mandatory injunction. Such submission is completely unacceptable and not applicable to
the facts of the case.
Defendant no.2 and 3 shall also clarify on the NDOH as to which body is
responsible for sealing and stopping the operation of the alleged
dhaba being run in the
alleged premises in case of violation of the relevant rules.
-- 1 of 2 --
The ARs of defendants no.2 and 3 shall remain present in person on the
NDOH alongwith proper instructions, failing which a cost of Rs.5000/- shall be imposed
upon the absentee party.
Be adjourned for 02.11.2026.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
10.08.2026
-- 2 of 2 --