Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
18 CS SCJ 168/25
ANJU AND ANR Vs. SATYAWATI AND ORS
22.05.2026
Argued by: Sh. Mohammad Yusuf, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Neeraj Singh , Ld. Counsel for defendant.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the application u/O 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint are that the plaintiffs are
daughter in law and son of the defendant no. 1 and are residing at the
first floor of house no. A-72, B, Gali no. 5, sukhbir Nagar, Village
Karala, North West, Delhi. It is stated that the defendants are residing
on the ground floor of the suit property and the parties are stated to
have strained relations. It is stated that the defendants are trying to
dispossess the plaintiff unlawfully from the suit property, hence, the
present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction.
3. By way of present application, the plaintiffs seek interim
injunction so as to restrain the defendants from handing over the
possession and from creating third party interest in the suit property.
4. Per contra, the defendants have filed a WS stating that the suit
property is exclusively owned by defendant no. 1 and the plaintiffs
have no title to the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiffs have
filed a frivolous suit in order to harass the defendants.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is a well settled law that for proving himself to be entitled to a
temporary injunction, the plaintiff has to prove three things:-
(i) That a prima facie case is made out in his favour.
(ii) That the balance of convenience lies in his favour.
(iii) That the refusal of injunction will cause irreparable
injury to him.
7. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
prima facie case means that there is a
serious disputed question to be tried in the suit, and on facts before the
Court, there is probability of applicant to be entitled to the relief asked
for.
8. Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt. It is no
part of the Court's function at this stage, to sift and weigh, the
evidentiary material filed alongwith pleadings to assess their probative
value. The only requirement is that whether the view taken as per the
plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff is a possible view or not.
[M. Gurudas V/s Rasranjan (2006) 8 SCC 367].
9. As far as the point of irreparable injury is concerned, it is a
settled law that no injury is irreparable which can be adequately
compensated by way of damages and when there are other efficacious
remedies available to the applicant.
[Kuldip Singh V/s Subhash
-- 2 of 3 --
3
Chandra Jain (AIR 2000 SC 1410), Maharawal Khewaji Trust V/s
Baldev Dass (2004) 8 SCC 488].
10. Balance of convenience connotes comparative hardship or
mischief likely to be caused to either party in case of grant or refusal of
the injunction.
[Dalpat Kumar V/s Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276)].
11. In light of the above said principles, the plaintiff has to show a
prima facie case in their favour. The possession of the plaintiffs qua
the first floor of the suit property has not been specifically denied by
the defendants. However, the plaintiff has only sought relief of
peacefull possession in the main suit. Even the plaintiff has averred
that the suit property is in the name of defendant no. 1, although they
claim the same to be purchased from joint funds. It appears hat no
irreparable loss shall be caused to the plaintiff if the part relief of
injunction qua creating third party interest is not granted.
12. Accordingly, the application is partly allowed and the
defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the
suit property i.e. first floor of house no. A-72, B, Gali no. 5, Sukhbir
Nagar, Village Karala, North West, Delhi till the pendency of the suit,
till further orders of this Court.
13. Nothing mentioned above would tantamount to expression of
any opinion on the merits of the suit.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-22.05.2026
-- 3 of 3 --