Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 18 CS SCJ 1118/23
SHRI NIWAS Vs. SDM NARELA
`
26.10.2023
Present: Sh. Rakesh Rajput, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendants (through VC).
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the copy
of the amended plaint has not been received by them. Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff undertakes to supply the the same electronically to the opposite side’s
counsel at his email ID suniladv97@gmail.com during the course of the day
today itself. Upon such furnishing, WS, if any, be filed within the stipulated
period.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff presses his
Application u/O XXXIX R 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the Defendant to
alienate / alter or occupy the suit property. The same is vehemently opposed to
by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
Law as regards interlocutory injunctions is no longer res integra
and the Plaintiff has to prove existence of a prima facie case in his favour.
Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can
be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same
were believed. It includes the consideration of there being a probability of
Plaintiff obtaining the relief at the conclusion of the trial on the basis of the
material placed before the Court. The expression 'Balance of convenience'
means the comparative mischief or inconvenience caused to the parties
whereas irreparable loss would mean a loss which cannot be compensated by
money.
In the present case, a perusal of the case file shows that the
Plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be the legal heir of the owner of the suit
property. In order to corroborate the said claim, the Plaintiffs have relied
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
CS SCJ 1118/23
SHRI NIWAS Vs. SDM NARELA
upon an alleged sale deed at page no. 28 and khatoni entries at page no. 29
and 30. A perusal of the sale deed shows that the same is unregistered and
hence, cannot be relied upon in light of the provisions of S. 49 of The
Registration Act. Further, the khatoni entries do not contain the name of
either father of P-1 or the Plaintiffs themselves. Accordingly, in the
considered opinion of this Court as the Plaintiffs have failed to prove
themselves to be either owner or in possession of the suit property, they have
failed to prove a prima facie case in their favour. In the absence of ny prima
facie case, no occasion arises for determination qua balance of convenience
for irreparable injury. Accordingly, application u/O XXXIX R 1 and 2 CPC is
hereby rejected. It is reiterated that nothing contained herein shall tantamount
to any observation as regards the merits of the present case.
Put up the matter for further proceedings on 18.01.2023.
(PRITU RAJ)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/26.10.2023
-- 2 of 2 --