Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 36 CS SCJ 282/24
PUNEET AGGARWAL Vs. SATBIR SINGH
17.04.2025
Present : Sh. Manak Budhiraj, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
through VC.
Defendant no. 1 (husband of defendant no. 2) is
present through VC.
Matter is passed for post lunch session.
(Priyanka Rajpoot)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.04.2025
Proceedings from 4:15 to 4:45 PM
Present : Sh. Manak Budhiraj, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
through VC.
None for defendant.
1. The matter is listed for orders on the application u/O
39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff
seeking following reliefs:
(i) to restrain the defendants from creating
obstruction or blockage in the common passage
shown in red colour in the site plan (inadvertently
referred as green colour in the application);
(ii) to restrain the defendants from tresspassing on
the property of the plaintiff and;
(ii) to restrain the defendants from stopping or
locking the lift installed in the buidling.
-- 1 of 5 --
-: 2 :-
2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of
the third floor alongwith roof rights of property bearing no.
BD-65, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 and has common rights in the
entrance passage and other common areas of the building. It is
also not disputed that the defendants are the joint owners and in
possession of the upper ground floor and first floor of the said
property.
3. The plaintiff has alleged that on 16.01.2024,
defendant no. 1 intentionally blocked waste pipe outlet of the
plaintiff’s bathroom from the outside and unauthorizedly covered
the area in the stilt parking, which allegedly caused nuisance and
blockage in the common passage. It is also stated that the main
drain is accessible through the stilt parking area, which is meant
to remain open for the common use and maintenance purpose of
all occupants of the building.
4. It is further stated that the lift was locked by
defendant no. 1 which caused incovenience and hardship to the
plaintiff, who is in occupation of third floor. In view of the
obstruction caused by defendants, the plaintiff called PCR but no
needful was done by the police.
5. On the other hand, defendant no. 1 has denied the
allegation and claimed that it is the plaintiff who is at fault. He
alleged that the labourers called by the plaintiff misused the lift
and left debris which led to blockage of the sewage. Further, the
-- 2 of 5 --
-: 3 :-
plaintiff unilaterally changed the lift system from manual to card
operated programme and also closed the water tank valve.
6. Defendant no. 1 also alleged that brother of plaintiff
threatened him which led to involvement of police. Therefore, he
has also filed a counter claim seeking relief of permanent
injunction against the plaintiff.
7. Upon scrutinizing the record, it is evident that both
the parties live in the same building and have levelled allegations
against each other, which will be adjudicated during the trial.
However, at this stage, prima facie, case is made out in favour of
the plaintiff.
8. It is not disputed that the area shown in red colour in
the site plan contains water and drainage lines that may require
periodic maintenance and emergency repairs. Preventing access
to this area may result in disruption of day-to-day maintenance of
water pipelines and damage to the plaintiff’s property. Similarly,
the alleged act of locking the lift by the defendants, if repeated
can cause inconvenience to the plaintiff, who is in possession of
third floor.
9. The court is of the considered opinion that irreparable
injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if he is denied access to
the common passage and lift, as he will not be able to maintain
sanitation and to access his own residence. Moreover, the balance
-- 3 of 5 --
-: 4 :-
of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff as the relief
sought by him merely seeks to maintain peace and to prevent the
possibility of escalation of dispute.
10. Accordingly, following interim directions are
passed:
a) Defendants are directed to provide access to
the common passsage as shown in red colour in the
site plan to the plaintiff for maintenance purpose.
b) Plaintiff is permitted to carry out necessary
repairs in the said area as and when required.
However, he shall inform the defendants at least one
hour in advance prior to carrying out such repairs.
c) Upon such intimation, the defendants shall co-
operate and allow access to the plaintiff without
creating any obstruction.
d) Defendants are hereby restrained from
locking, diabling or otherwise obstructing the use of
the lift installed in the abovesaid property so that the
plaintiff can access to his floor.
e) The defendants are hereby restrained from
entering the plaintiff’s property i.e. the third floor
without his consent.
-- 4 of 5 --
-: 5 :-
Accordingly, the abovesaid application is disposed
off.
Put up for framing of issues on 12.08.2025.
(Priyanka Rajpoot)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.04.2025
-- 5 of 5 --