Interim Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
36 CS SCJ 252/24
Dinesh Kumar Dabas Vs. Suresh Dabas
14.03.2026
Matter taken up today as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as
02.03.2026 was declared a holiday vide circular no. 64/G-4/Genl.I/DHC dated
27.02.2026.
Present: Sh. J. V. Rana Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Jatin Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for defendant alongwith
defendant.
1. Vide this order I shall decide the application filed by the plaintiff under
order 39 rule 1 & 2.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is owner and in
possession of the land admeasuring 4 Bigha 16 Biswa in Khasra no. 35/11
situated within Revenue Estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi (Hereinafter
referred as “Suit Property”. It is stated that the plaintiff had purchased the
Suit property from Ms. Neelam Chabra vide a registered Sale deed dated
04.07.2018 and since the day of its purchase, he is in continuous and
peaceful possession of the suit property. However, it is alleged that the
defendants have tried to dispossess the plaintiff and to take forceful
possession of the suit property. Hence, the present suit has been filed by
the plaintiff seeking injunction restraining the defendants form
dispossessing him and from creating any hinderance in his peaceful
possession of the suit property.
3. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that initially a suit
was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi where the plaintiff and
-- 1 of 4 --
2
defendant herein were also a defendant and the defendant herein i.e., Mr.
Suresh Dabas had filed a WS defending the sale deed in favour of
Neelam Chabra from whom now the plaintiff claims his title. It is argued
that during those proceedings, there was a stay by the Hon’ble High Court
on registration of the sale deed, however the said suit was later on
transferred to the District Court and was dismissed in default, accordingly
the stay was also dismissed. Hence, it is argued that thereafter a sale deed
was registered and only after then, the plaintiff had purchased the Suit
property from Ms. Neelam Chabra in year 2018. It is also argued that the
defendant has relied upon the Girdawari documents to show his possession
and the same cannot prevail over a registered Sale deed.
4. Hence, by way of the present application, the plaintiff has sought ad-
interim injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their staff, agents etc.
from dispossessing complainant from the suit property and restraining
them from creating any hindrance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff
with respect to the suit property
5. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has opposed this application stating that the
claims of the plaintiff are baseless and that the plaintiff has not approached
this court with clean hands as the defendant is claimed to be the owner of
the suit property. It is stated that there is no mutation in the name of plaintiff
and the revenue records reflects the defendants to be the owner of the suit
property. As such it is argued that the plaintiff does not have any prima
facie case in his favour and even there is no balance of convenience in
favour of the plaintiff. It has also been argued by the defendant that the suit
property is an agricultural land and is a subject matter of jurisdiction of the
revenue authorities as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act. As such it is argued
that the application of the plaintiff be dismissed with heavy cost.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by both the parties and have perused
the records carefully.
7. It is a trite law that the crucial parameters on which application under Order
XXXIX rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC has to be disposed of are as
under:
a. Whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the applicant or
not?
b. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant?
c. Whether the applicant is going to suffer irreparable loss & injury, in
case the injunction is not granted?
8. Prima facie case means that there is a likelihood of infraction of a legal
right of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff has to also establish
that balance of convenience lies in its favour. Balance of convenience
connotes comparatives mischief likely to be caused to the other party in
case of grant or refusal of relief of injunction. The plaintiff has to also
satisfy the court that non-interference by the court would result in an
irreparable injury and that there is no other remedy available to him except
one i.e. grant of injunction in his favour. The plaintiff has to prove the
above-stated three ingredients before he can be given a relief under Order
XXXIC rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC.
9. In the case in hand, the possession of the suit property has been disputed,
however the plaintiff has placed his claim based on a registered sale deed.
On the other hand, the defendant has placed his claim of possession based
on the revenue records and certain bills which were raised in the name of
the defendant. It is a settled law that in case of an open land, possession
shall follow the title as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
-- 3 of 4 --
4
Anathula Sudhakar V. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors. In view of the registered sale
deed, it appears that the plaintiff has a Prima Facie case. Also, the balance
of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff in view of
Anathula Sudhakar
V. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors and the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss if he
is not allowed to defend his possession during the pendency of this suit.
10.Accordingly, in view of the abovementioned discussion, the application of
the applicant/plaintiff is disposed of as allowed.
11.The defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
property and from creating any hinderance in the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff qua the suit property till disposal of this suit or till further
orders of this Court.
12.Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to findings on the merits of the
case.
13.Application stands disposed off.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-14.03.2026
-- 4 of 4 --