Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Sonam Lohia Vs. Rohit Singh Page no. 1 of 3
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV KUMAR,
CIVIL JUDGE, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ 376/25
SONAM LOHIA Vs. ROHIT SINGH
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall decide the application filed by the plaintiff under order
39 Rule 1 & 2.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as per the plaint are that the defendant no. 1 is
the brother of plaintiff and proforma defendants no. 2 to 4 are the sisters of
the plaintiff. It is stated that the father of the parties, namely, Sh. Rambir had
purchased two immovable properties in his name during his lifetime i.e.
property bearing no. B-107, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II, 40 Ft. Road, Sector-04,
Rohini, Delhi-110085 admeasuring 200 sq. yards and property bearing no.
B-88 Vijay Vihar, Phase-II, Sector-04, Rohini, admeasuring 100 sq. yards
(hereinafter “suit properties”. It is stated that the father of parties used to
operate his business of Dairy Farm from property bearing no. B-88 and the
other property i.e. bearing no. B-107 was divided into two parts of 100 sq.
yards and in one portion of 100 sq. yards, a two story building was constructed
in which, the plaintiff is presently residing. It is stated that the defendant no.
1 did not have cordial relations with his father and hence, he was debarred
from all the properties of Mr. Rambir.
3. It is stated that after the death of Mr. Rambir, the defendant no. 1 has started
to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and it is stated that in Feb, 2025,
the defendant no. 1 stole original title documents of both the properties i.e.
-- 1 of 4 --
Sonam Lohia Vs. Rohit Singh Page no. 2 of 3
B-107 and B-88 and is now threatening to dispose off the properties. It is
stated that that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants have a right in the
suit properties and the defendant no. 1 was debarred by their late father.
Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction to restrain
the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from
creating any third party interest in the suit properties. Also, mandatory
injunction is sought to direct the defendant no. 1 to return the title documents
of the suit properties to the plaintiff.
4. By way of the present application, it is argued that the plaintiff is residing in
one of the suit property and if the defendant creates any third party interest,
the plaintiff will not have any other place to reside. It is argued that the
proforma defendants no. 2 to 4 are married and they reside at their respective
matrimonial homes. However, the plaintiff is unmarried and has no other
place to reside. Hence, it is prayed that the defendant be restrained from
creating any third party interest in the suit property and from dispossessing
the plaintiff from the suit property during pendency of the trial.
5. Defendant entered appearance, however no WS was filed on behalf of
defendant no. 1. Hence, the defence was struck off.
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
-- 2 of 4 --
Sonam Lohia Vs. Rohit Singh Page no. 3 of 3
the injunction is not granted?
8. 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.
9. 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].
10. 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 Chandra Jain (AIR 2000 SC 1410),
Maharawal Khewaji Trust V/s Baldev Dass (2004) 8 SCC 488].
11. 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)].
12. Considering the averment made that the father of the plaintiff had purchased
the suit properties and the plaintiff is in possession in one of the properties, a
prima facie case exits in favour of applicant in absence of any WS on behalf
of the defendants, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the
applicant / plaintiff at this stage. Also, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the
defendants are restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit
-- 3 of 4 --
Sonam Lohia Vs. Rohit Singh Page no. 4 of 3
properties and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit properties till
disposal of the suit or till further orders of this court.
13. Application stands disposed off as allowed.
14. Nothing mentioned herein shall tantamount to an expression on merits of this
case.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-15.09.2026
-- 4 of 4 --