Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 7 CS SCJ 1154/25
Ram Kumari Vs. Rishipal
09.07.2026
AT 04:00pm
Present: None.
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 plaintiff claim herself to be the owner of
the property admeasuring 189.57 sq. yds out of 325 sq. yds out of Khasra No. 70/51,
situated in the extended Lal Dora of Village Mangolpuri Kalan, Delhi-110085 (herein
after referred to as suit property) by virtue of registered sale deed. It is stated that the
defendant No. 1 is the husband of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 & 3 are her son and
daughter in law respectively. It is stated that the relations between the plaintiff and
defendants turned sour and now the defendants are not providing necessary maintenance
to the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that she had inducted tenants in the suit
property which are around 35-40 in number and they regularly pay rent ranging from Rs.
2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- (for each premises). However, the said rent is being collected by
defendant No. 1. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking directions to restrain the
defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit property and to remove the
defendants from the suit property. Prayer is also sought to restrain the defendants from
collecting/receiving rent from the tenants at the premises.
3. The present application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been filed on behalf of the
plaintiff wherein, relying upon the contents of the plaint, it is prayed that the plaintiff has
sought directions to the defendants to restrain them from collecting the rent, electricity
and water charges from the tenants of the suit property and restraining them from
creating any third party interest.
-- 1 of 4 --
4. Written statements has been filed on behalf of the defendants wherein the contents
of the plaint and application have been denied and has prayed that the same be
dismissed.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants has opposed the application stating that the
defendant No. 1 is the landlord of the said tenants and lease/rent agreements have been
entered by the defendant No. 1 with the said tenants. It is stated that even he has filed a
suit seeking declaration of ownership of the suit property which is pending adjudication
before Ld. District Judge. Further, it is stated that the said tenants have been inducted by
the defendant No. 1 since the year 2006 and rent is also been collected by defendants.
Hence, it is argued that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is a well settled law that for proving himself to be entitled to 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.
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
-- 2 of 4 --
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. 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).
13. In light of the above said principles, the plaintiff has to show a very strong prima
facie case in her favour. However, perusal of documents of the defendants prima facie
shows that the tenants have been inducted by defendant No. 1 at the premises.
Undisputedly, the rent is being collected by the defendant No. 1 qua the suit property
and none of the tenant has been made a party to the suit or this application. The
averments of the plaintiff are a matter of trial.
14. Accordingly, the prayer regarding restrainment from collection of rent is
dismissed.
-- 3 of 4 --
15. In order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, defendants are directed to not
to create any third party interest in the suit property during pendency of the suit or till
further order of this Court.
16. With these directions, the applicaton under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is
disposed off.
17. Nothing mentioned above would tantamount to expression of any opinion on the
merits of the suit.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
09.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --