Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
CS SCJ 770/26
SAURAV SHEKHAWAT Vs. POOJA AND ORS
23.09.2026
Argued By: Ms. Dhaneshwari, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application u/O 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the plaint are that the
plaintiff and defendant were on friendly terms, however, it is stated that
the defendant had told the plaintiff that she was unmarried. It is stated
that the plaintiff got to know that the defendant was already married and
had two children, however, when she was confronted, she threatened to
implicate the plaintiff and extorted money from him. It is stated that
now the defendant reaches the place of work of the plaintiff and makes
false statements against him due to which he had to change his job
previously. Hence, the prsent suit has been filed seeking permanent
injunction thereby directing the defendants to not to enter the office
premises of the plaintiff and further to not to disturb the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff qua the suit property i.e. C-17, Rajeev Nagar,
Begumpur, Delhi-110086 and E-375, Budh Nagar, Inderpur, Delhi.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1
wherein the contents of the plaint have been denied and it is submitted
that the defendant has no interest whatsoever in the said property and has
never sought to enter, occupay or creat any interest in the suit property.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Further allegations of the plaintiff have been denied and it is stated that
the defendant herein has instituted criminal proceedings against the
plaintiff as he had established physical relations with the defendant on
the false pretext of marriage.
4. The present application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been filed on
behalf of the plaintiff wherein it has been prayed that the defendants be
restrained from entering in the suit property and from creating any
hinderance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua the suit
property no. C-17, Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur. Also it is prayed that the
defendant be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit
property till the pendencey of this suit.
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.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
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 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. Apart from the above stated legal position, it is noteworthy that
the interim relief sought by the plaintiff is the same as one of the final
reliefs and the law is well established that in order to obtain the final
relief at an interim stage, the plaintiff has to show a very strong prima
facie case in his favour (Deoraj vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC
1975).
12. In the present case, in para no. 2 of the reply on merits in the WS
of the defendant no. 1, it has been mentioned that the defendant has no
-- 3 of 4 --
4
interest whatsoever in the suit property. Considering the said averment,
the defendants are restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff qua the suit property and from creating any third party
interest in the suit property i.e. C-17, Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur,
Delhi-110086 till the pendency of the suit or till further orders of this
Court.
13. Accordingly, the application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is disposed
off.
14. Nothing mentioned above would tantamount to expression of any
opinion on the merits of the suit.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
23.09.2026
-- 4 of 4 --