Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 1 of7
IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMAR-V DISTRICT
JUDGE-04 NORTH WEST DISTRICT ROHINI, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
RCA DJ No. 35/2025
CNR No. DLNW010104752025
Shri Om Prakash
S/o Late Jagan Singh
R/o H. No. 39-B, Village Rithala
Delhi-110085.
...APPELLANT
Versus
1. Shri Dharmender Singh
Plot/Property No.263-264,
Block-B, Pocket-5, Opp. Payal Jewellers Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
2. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Dr.S.P.Mukhrjee Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.
3. Deputy Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Rohini Zone,
Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
4. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi-110023.
5. The Station House Officer,
PS Budh Vihar, Distt. Rohini, Sector-5, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
...Respondents
-- 1 of 7 --
RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 2 of7
Date of institution : 04.10.2025
Date of conclusion of argument : 02.05.2026
Date of judgment : 02.05.2026
APPEAL UNDER ORDER 96 CPC FOR SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2025 PASSED BY
SH. GAURAV SHARMA, JSCC- CUM-ASCJ-CUM GJ,
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI IN CS
SCJ-877/2025 TITLED AS "OM PRAKASH VS.
DHARMENDER SINGH & OTHERS" AND FOR
RESTORATION OF MAIN SUIT TO ITS ORIGINAL
NUMBER.
J U D G M E N T
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant/plaintiff
is challenging Order Dated 06.09.2025 Passed by Ld. JSCC-
Cum-ASCJ-Cum GJ, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide
which plaint has been rejected under order 7 rule 11 (a) CPC
R/w Section 41 (j) SRA.
Brief Facts Of The Case As Per Plaint
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff
stating himself to be a social worker. It has been averred by the
plaintiff that defendant no. 1 has raised illegal / unauthorized
construction at H.No. 263-264, measuring 26 sq. mts., each as
compact construction total measuring 52 sq. mts. in Block,
Pocket 5, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi-110085, MCD Ward No. 22
(Rohini-B) by illegally digging basement and constructing
shops at Ground Floor, with Flats at First, Second, Third and
Fourth Floors, together with extending chajjas / projections on
three sides over Government / MCD street by covering them
-- 2 of 7 --
RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 3 of7
into rooms and balcony as shown in red colour in site plan suit
property. Such acts on part of defendant no. 1 are related to be
in total violation of the MCD Rules and Regulations in that
regard. By getting clicked photographs of such construction, the
plaintiff is stated to have reported the matter to MCD as well, in
pursuance of which ultimately, the suit property was booked U/s
343/344 DMC Act vide Booking No. 164/UC/22/B-1/RZ/2023
on 20.12.2023 and demolition order was also passed on
10.01.2024. Not only that, the plaintiff has also contended that
in pursuance of such demolition order, demolition action was
also initiated on 12.01.2024, which however was not taken to
its logical end. In view of such circumstances therefore, the
present suit has been filed seeking the relief of declaration
with regards the construction undertaken at the site of the suit
property being declared as illegal and unauthorized and for
mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant no. 2 & 3 /
MCD to demolish the same.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
3. Perusal of the record shows that appellant/plaintiff
had filed a suit for injunction against Respondents. The Ld. Trial
court passed a detailed order stating that there was no cause of
action and this suit was barred by law. The Ld. Trial Court
therefore rejected the plaint vide order dated 06.09.2025.
3. In the present case Ld. counsel for plaintiff/appellant
had argued that every citizen has right to file cases against
unauthorized construction and the plaintiff being the resident of
locality was taking action by filing the suit.
4. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the
-- 3 of 7 --
RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 4 of7
material placed on record, is of the considered view that a
person residing in a particular locality does not, by that fact
alone, acquire an indefeasible or unfettered right to seek
injunctive relief in respect of every activity or event taking place
within such locality. The grant of an injunction is predicated
upon the existence of a legally enforceable right and a
corresponding infringement thereof; thus, unless it is clearly
demonstrated that the impugned act has a direct, proximate, and
substantial bearing upon the life, liberty, or civil rights of the
plaintiff, no cause of action can be said to accrue in his favour.
5. The plaintiff has not establish any nexus or
legitimate interest in the subject matter of such disputes. It is
further pertinent to note that even at the appellate stage, and
during the course of submission by appellant, the learned
counsel for the appellant has conspicuously failed to delineate
or substantiate the precise civil or legal right alleged to have
been violated, or to demonstrate any personal or legally
protectable interest of the plaintiff in the controversy at hand.
The absence of such foundational elements strikes at the very
root of the maintainability of the suit, rendering the claim
devoid of merit.
6. Moreover, If there is any illegal or unauthorized
construction, it is for the government authority to look into the
matter and to discharge their duties as per law. It is not for any
other person not related with the matter to take upon itself a task
of reforming the locality. A representative suit might have been
possible but the same is not the case here and therefore appellant
cannot be shown any indulgence.
7. Since the appellant has no personal interest in the
-- 4 of 7 --
RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 5 of7
suit property, the present suit is barred under the provisions of
Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act. More over, the
appellant has no cause of action to file the suit before Ld. Trial
court as no right of appellant has been infringed. The suit has
been filed before Ld Trial Court without any locus. A plaint
without a cause of action and without locus is also liable to be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Moreover, if any illegal
construction is going on in the suit property then certainly it will
give cause of action in favour of Municipal Authority, however,
it does not give cause of action in favour of appellant as no
personal right of the plaintiff have been infringed.
8. In the judgment titled as Rajinder Motwani vs. MCD
RSA No.243/17 dated 16.10.2017, the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in para no. 8 held as under :
“an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal
right to a neighbour. An illegal construction always
no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal
authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction,
but a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights
of light and air or any other legal right is affected by
virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbor. Legal
right to light and air is only in terms of section 15 of
the Easement Act, 1882 which requires a cause of
action to be laid out and proved that right to light and
air has been enjoyed for 20 years and only on
completion of 20 years there is right to acquisition by
prescription in the easementary rights. It is relevant to
note that even after acquisition of easemenatry rights
of prescription, yet, right to injunction for a neighbor is
not absolute and is covered by Section 33 of the
Easement Act which requires that disturbance to the
easementary rights must actually cause substantial
damage to a neighbor and the infraction materially
diminishes the value of the dominant heritage with the
fact that there is material interference in the physical
comfort of the neighbor of living in his own house or
-- 5 of 7 --
RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 6 of7
prevents the neighbor from carrying on his accustomed
business in the dominant heritage/his own house. All
these are factual aspects and admittedly there is no
cause of action which is laid out in the plaint in terms
of section 15 and 33 of the Easement Act that right to
easement of the appellants/plaintiffs has become
absolute as it has been enjoyed for 20 years and that
in fact after rights to easement are acquired by
prescription there is also a substantial damage to the
appellants/plaintiffs or there is material interference in
the physical comfort of the appellants/plaintiffs or the
appellants/plaintiffs being prevented from carrying on
his accustomed business in their own dominant
heritage/own property.”
9. Thus, from the above judgment passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is clear that merely by virtue of
being neighbour or resident of locality, a person does not
become entitled to file a suit to restrain other from carrying
illegal construction. In order to have locus, the party filing the
suit must show that by virtue of such construction his legal right
to air or water or light has been affected or such construction is
going to be detrimental to his own property or his safety.
10. In the case in hand appellant have made general and
vague allegations regarding infringement of personal rights. In
view of the court, no personal right of appellant have been
infringed or threaten to be infringed therefore appellant have no
locus to file the suit before Ld. Trial Court as no cause of action
arises in his favour. Therefore, the present plaint is rightly
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by Ld. Trial Court. In the
view of this court there is no illegality or perversity in the order
of Ld. Trial Court.
CONCLUSION
-- 6 of 7 --
RCA DJ No. 35/2025 Om Parkash Vs. Dharmender Singh & Ors. . Page 7 of7
11. In view of above discussion, this court is of
considered opinion that ld. Trial Court has rightly rejected the
plaint under order 7 rule 11 (a) CPC R/W Section 41 (j) SRA.
Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby
dismissed and order of Ld. Trial Court is affirmed.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 2nd May 2026
(RAKESH KUMAR-V)
DJ-04, North West
Rohini Courts, Delhi
-- 7 of 7 --