Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
44 CS SCJ 972/24
Charan Singh Vs. Raj Singh Mann
11.08.2026
Argued by: Sh. R.S. Lathwal, Sh. Amit Mittal and Sh. Ajay, Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh.Vijay Prajapati, Ld. Counsel for both the defendants
alongwith defendant no. 1.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the application u/O 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are co-bhumidar
having 1/3rd share each in agricultural land in Khata no. 433/383 Khasra
no. 53/6(4-05), 7(4-05), 5(4-12), 77 23/1(0.01), 149/0 (0-17), 686/0(0-
15), 687/0 (1-15) total measuring 16 bigha 10 Biswa situated in
Revenue Estate of Village Ghevra, Delhi-110081. It is stated that the
defendants are having dishonest intention to grab the part of agricultural
land of plaintiffs and even the father of defendants also admitted to take
forceful possession of the land but they could not succeed. It is stated
that the ancestors of defendants filed a petition under section 185 DLR
act bearing case no. S/RA/92, in the Court of Ld. Revenue Assistant
Nangloi which was dismissed for non prosecution. It is stated that on
10.05.2024 the defendants visited the land of plaintiff and threatened
that they will cultivate the said land in Khasra no. 53/5 and further
threatened to take forcible possession of the said land belonging to the
plaintiffs. Hence, a police complaint was made. As such the present suit
has been filed seeking injunction thereby restraining the defendants from
-- 1 of 4 --
2
taking forceful possession and from creating 3rd party interest in the suit
property.
3. By way of the present application, the plaintiff has sought
temporary injunction thereby restraining the defendants from creating
any obstruction in the peaceful possession of suit property by the
plaintiff and further to restrain them from creating third party interest in
the suit property during pendency of this suit.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant has opposed the application
stating that the defendants are in possession of the suit property being
the owner of the same. It is stated that the ancestor of defendant namely
Mr. Sis Ram had purchased the suit property from one Sh. Pyare Lal and
after the demise of Sh. Sis Ram, the suit property devolved upon the
father of defendant. Further it is argued that a cloud has been raised
over the title of the plaintiff and suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
as it is only for injunction. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in “
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi
Reddy”
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.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
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 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
-- 3 of 4 --
4
facie case in his favour (Deoraj vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC
1975).
12. In view of the contentions of both the parties, this Court is of the
view that no irreparable loss appears to be caused if the present
application is not allowed. The suit property is agricultural land and its
possession has to be proved during trial. Further, in order to seek
temporary relief, the plaintiff had to show a very strong prima facie case
and a balance of convenience in his favour which has not been done at
this stage.
13. Accordingly, the application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is dismissed.
14. Nothing mentioned above would tantamount to expression of any
opinion on the merits of the suit.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
11.08.2026
-- 4 of 4 --