Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 27 CS SCJ 1706/24
Rukmani Devi Vs. Smt Jyoti
01.07.2026
ORDER
Vide this order I shall decide the application under order 39
rule 1 and 2 CPC.
It is argued by the applicant/plaintiff that the plaintiff is lawful
owner of property situated at C-81, Aman Vihar, Kirari Suleman Nagar,
which consists of Ground Floor and First Floor(hereinafter referred as “Suit
Property”). It is stated that the son of plaintiff got married to defendant no.
1 on 17.02.2018 and thereafter, the defendant no. 1 was residing at the first
floor of the suit property. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 started
harassing the son of plaintiff due to which he committed suicide on
19.04.2024 and thereafter, the defendant no. 1 started harassing and
threatening the plaintiff with the intention to get the property of plaintiff
transferred in the name of defendant no. 1. It is stated that now the
defendant no. 1 has filed various complaints against the plaintiff solely with
the intent to obtain property from the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has
been filed seeking directions to restrain the defendant from interfering in
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua suit property.
Even same prayer has been made in the application u/o
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the
defendant is residing at the first floor of the suit property as the same is her
matrimonial home. He argues that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable.
Hence, it is argued that the application be also dismissed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
-- 1 of 2 --
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 the injunction is not granted?
Prima facie case means that there is a likelihood of infraction
of a legal right of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff has to also
establish that balance of convenience lies in its favour. Balance of
convenience connotes comparatives mischief likely to be caused to the
other party in case of grant or refusal of relief of injunction. The plaintiff
has to also satisfy the court that non-interference by the court would result
in an irreparable injury and that there is no other remedy available to him
except one i.e. grant of injunction in his favour. The plaintiff has to prove
the above-stated three ingredients before she can be given a relief under
Order XXXIC rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the defendant,
it appears that the possession of the first floor of the suit property will be
decided during the trial after leading evidence. Further, no irreparable loss
shall be caused to the plaintiff if the application is not allowed.
Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.
Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to findings on the
merits of the case.
Application stands disposed off.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-01.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --