Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 16 CS SCJ/982/2026
CNR No. DLNW03-0016102026
MAHESH KUMAR BATRA Vs. SAMTA JAIN
14.08.2026
Present : Sh. Abhishek Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
with plaintiff.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Mantu, Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.1 through VC.
Ms. Vasu Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.2/MCD through VC.
Matter is fixed today for arguments on application
u/o 6 rule 17 CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff.
Heard. Perused.
During arguments Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1
has submitted that he has no objection if application is allowed
and amended plaint and amended memo of parties are taken on
record.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has undertaken to e-
mail his no objection by 12:00 PM today itself.
Reader is directed to keep the copy of the same on
the judicial record.
Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of
parties, amended plaint and amended memo of parties are taken
on record.
Be put up for orders at 01:00 PM.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, N-W/14.08.2026
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
At 01:00 PM
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the maintainability of
the present suit. I have already heard arguments and perused the
record.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1
that present suit is not maintainable before this court as this court
does not have jurisdiction in view of section 347 E of DMC Act,
1957 as section 347 B (f) gives liberty to any person aggrieved
from the order sanctioning or refusing to sanction the erection of
any building or the execution of any work under section 336 of
DMC Act. It is submitted that defendant no. 1 has obtained
sanctioned plan for the suit property i.e. property bearing no.
B-4/140-141, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085. It is submitted that
defendant no. 1 is raising construction as per the site plan and in
case plaintiff or any other person has some objections to the said
construction, he should approach the appellate tribunal for
adjudication of the said objection and jurisdiction of civil court is
barred u/s 347 E of DMC Act. It is submitted that as per 4.4.3
(xx) of Master Plan for Delhi, 2021, defendant no. 1 is entitled to
amalgamation of two plots upto 64 sq. mts. and there is no
violation on the part of defendant no. 1 if he had amalgamated
two plots.
Ld counsel for MCD has vehemently submitted that
there is no doubt that defendant no. 1 has obtained sanction prior
to construction in the suit property, however, two different
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
sanctions have been obtained for plot no. B-4/140 and plot no.
B-4/141. It is submitted that construction is not as per site plan as
the defendant no. 1 is raising construction on both the abovesaid
plot together after amalgamating both the abovesaid plot. It is
submitted that defendant no. 1 was required to obtain the
sanction for construction on amalgamated plots, however, no
such sanction has been obtained for construction on amalgamated
plans.
Ld counsel for plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff is
not challenging the sanction plan issued to the defendant no. 1 as
such, however, plaintiff is challenging the construction of
defendant no. 1 as same is not in accordance with the site plan as
defendant no. 1 has put the load of staircase on the wall of
plaintiff. It is further submitted that defendant no. 1 has also not
taken the sanctioned site plan for raising construction on
amalgamated plan. It is submitted that as plaintiff is not
challenging the individual site plan for construction issued in
favour of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 may raise
consideration strictly as per site plans separately on separate
plots, this court has jurisdiction to decide the present dispute.
From the consideration of arguments and perusal of
record, it is noted that by the combined reading of section 347 E,
section 347 B and section 336 of DMC Act, what has been
prohibited is the filing of suit in the civil court by any person
who is aggrieved by the order sanctioning or refusing to sanction
the erection of any building or execution of any other work u/s
336 of DMC Act. In the case at hand, the plaintiff is not
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
challenging the site plan sanctioned by MCD in favour of
defendant no. 1. The ground of challenge is that construction is
not being raised as per the Master Plan and also that defendant
no. 1 has raised staircase and put the load of same on the wall of
plaintiff. Ld counsel for MCD/defendant no. 2 has also clarified
that if defendant no. 1 was raising construction on amalgamated
plots he was required to obtain sanction for construction on
amalgamated plots and not on two different plots individually.
The perusal of 4.4.3 (xx) also makes it clear that one of the
conditions specified for amalgamation of two plots is that
modified layout plan is to be obtained from local body.
The court is of considered opinion that there is
presumption of jurisdiction of civil court and the party
challenging the jurisdiction of civil court is required to prove the
same. Further, the ouster of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be
easily presumed. In the case at hand, the court does not find that
jurisdiction of civil court is barred as plaintiff is not challenging
the correctness of the individual site plans. In the opinion of
court, the court has jurisdiction to try the present suit.
Be put up for further proceedings for 17.11.2026.
Interim order to continue till NDOH.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/14.08.2026(u)
-- 4 of 4 --