Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 22 CS DJ 522/24 Vijay Pal Vs. Amit Kumar
09.03.2026
Present : Sh. Narender Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant through V.C.
An application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of
CPC for condoning delay in filing of written statement filed on behalf of
defendant is pending.
The application is taken up for hearing.
Arguments are heard.
I am of the considered opinion that declining to take the written
statement on record would cause grave prejudice to the defendant, as it would
be deprived of the defence taken by it in the written statement, whereas no
serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff as he will be having the
opportunity to rebut the defence of the defendant and to prove his case. The
delay in filing the written statement can always be compensated in terms of
costs but failing to take the written statement on record will skew the
decision in favour of the plaintiff on a mere technicality. It is the objective of
the court to decide cases on their merit rather than allowing one party to steal
a march over the other merely due to delay in putting forth their defence.
Therefore, the application is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-
to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Subject to the said cost being paid
on the next date, the delay in filing of written statement is condoned and the
written statement filed by the defendant is taken on record.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
CPC filed on behalf of defendant is pending.
CS DJ 522/24
Vijay Pal Vs. Amit Kumar
Page no. 3 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
The application is taken up for hearing.
Arguments are heard.
The application is based on disputed facts pleaded in the
application. Those issues are triable and cannot be gone into at this stage. For
the purpose of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the
contents of the plaint are to be deemed to be correct. Limitation is also an
issue which in this case requires trial. In this behalf reference is made to the
recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran
Versus P. Narayanan & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 decided on 29th
April, 2025.
The contents of the plaint, taken at face value, cannot be deemed
to be false. The application is without merit and the same is dismissed with
cost of Rs. 3000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prays for disposal of application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
The said application is taken up for hearing.
By the said application, the plaintiff has sought interm injunction
restraining the defendant and his representatives from creating third party
interest in the suit property till the disposal of the suit.
The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of
property bearing no. E-7/35, area measuring 25 sq yards, consisting of
ground and first floor with roof rights situated in the area of village
Sultanpuri, Delhi by way of a possession slip issued by DDA in the name of
plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the defendant is nephew of the plaintiff and
CS DJ 522/24
Vijay Pal Vs. Amit Kumar
Page no. 3 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
that the plaintiff had permitted the defendant to stay in the property but now
the defendant is refusing to vacate it.
In my opinion, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case in
his favour. In case the suit property is disposed off or possession thereof is
transferred by the defendant, an innocent purchaser may get embroiled into
the controversy. This may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The suit
property deserves to be preserved till the rival contentions are adjudicated.
Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Irreparable
loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendant is permitted to transfer
title or possession of the property to another person.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, and the plaintiff’s
strong prima facie case, I allow the application and hereby grant interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The defendant, his agents, associates, and anyone claiming
through him, are restrained from creating any third-party interest in the suit
property, during the pendency of the suit.
Renotify on 13.10.2026.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
District Judge-III
North-West District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
09.03.2026
CS DJ 522/24
Vijay Pal Vs. Amit Kumar
Page no. 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --