Dismissed¶29

Pushpinder Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Nov 2025CM(M)/2193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 2193/2025 | Pushpinder Kumar & Anr. v Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. | Delhi HC, Justice Girish Kathpalia, decision 17.11.2025 | ATMCD order 13.10.2025 disposing Order I Rule 10 CPC application upheld | third party cannot join statutory appeal under DMC Act; only restrictive hearing before ATMCD in exceptional cases | Hardayal Singh Mehta v. MCD, 1991 SCC OnLine Del 558 (relied on) | Madhur Krishan Dhingra v. D.M.C. North & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 13129 (referred) | unauthorised construction, ventilation blockage, seepage, common-area encroachment, FIR No. 398/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North | petition and accompanying applications dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None — the impugned ATMCD order is upheld and the petition, along with the accompanying applications, is dismissed. ¶29

Pushpinder Kumar & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the impugned ATMCD order is upheld and the petition, along with the accompanying applications, is dismissed.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD — disposing of respondent no. 2's application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and granting him liberty to address arguments in appeal before ATMCD — contains any perversity or infirmity warranting issuance of notice and interference by the High Court. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The court finds no perversity or infirmity in the impugned ATMCD order; notice is not issued; the impugned order is upheld and the petition together with the accompanying applications is dismissed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

On the basic principle of Hardayal Singh Mehta (supra), no third party can join the statutory appeal under the DMC Act, which lies between the aggrieved persons and the MCD; accordingly, what is permitted before the ATMCD is only restrictive hearing, not hearing as a party to the proceedings.

¶28

Key takeaways

Respondent no. 2 is not a stranger to the subject matter: he is admittedly a neighbour of the petitioners, residing in the same building which is the subject matter of the MCD demolition order, which justifies the restrictive hearing granted despite the exceptional-cases limitation.ratio¶20
Clarificatory observation: the contents of respondent no. 2's impleadment application were taken note of solely to show that he is not a stranger to the subject matter and is a party affected by the allegedly unauthorized construction carried out and/or being carried out by the petitioners — not as findings against the petitioners, whose denial of the allegations stands recorded.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justice Girish Kathpalia), oral order dated 17.11.2025 in CM(M) 2193/2025: petition by Pushpinder Kumar & Anr. assailing the order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD), whereby respondent no. 2's application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was disposed of granting him liberty to address arguments in appeal before ATMCD, dismissed; impugned order upheld, no notice issued. Court endorsed the principle of Hardayal Singh Mehta vs. MCD, 1991 SCC OnLine Del 558, that no third party can join the statutory appeal under the DMC Act, which is between the aggrieved persons and the MCD, and that what is permitted is only restrictive hearing before ATMCD; restrictive-only hearing termed obvious in response to counsel's reference to Madhur Krishan Dhingra vs. D.M.C. North & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 13129. Respondent no. 2, admittedly a neighbour residing in the same building subject to the MCD demolition order, was held not a stranger to the subject matter; his application had alleged blocked ventilation, seepage from hazardous substances in an unauthorizedly constructed storeroom, common-area encroachment obstructing easement rights, and disclosed FIR No. 398/2022 of PS Vasant Kunj (North); the allegations were noted only to establish affected-party status, with the petitioners' denial recorded, and counsel's contention that no exceptional circumstances existed was rejected.

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 17.11.2025

¶4

- CM(M) 2193/2025, CM APPL. 71712/2025 & CM APPL. 71711/2025

¶5

PUSHPINDER KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Arjit Benjamin and Ms. Kashish Jain, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Standing Counsel for MCD

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioners have assailed order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Appellate Tribunal, MCD, whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the present respondent no. 2 was disposed of granting him liberty to address arguments in appeal before ATMCD.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, I am unable to find any perversity in the impugned order, so notice is not being issued.

¶13

It is argued on behalf of petitioners that an intervener can be allowed to participate in the appeals before the ATMCD in accordance with law laid down in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta vs. MCD , 1991 SCC OnLine

¶14

CM(M) 2193/2025

¶15

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:28 -08'00'

¶16

Page 1 of 3 pages

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.11.2025 17:43:34

¶19

Del 558, but that has to be done only in exceptional cases. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners has referred to the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC which led to passing of the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

¶20

Having traversed through the detailed application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for petitioners. Admittedly, the present respondent no. 2 is a neighbour of the petitioners, residing in the same building which is the subject matter of the demolition order passed by the MCD. In the said application, the present respondent no. 2 has described at length the illegal construction carried out by petitioners, which is not only blocking ventilation into the property of the present respondent no. 2 but also has led to seepage on account of hazardous substances stored in the unauthorizedly constructed storeroom, also causing serious threat to the residents of the building. Further, it is alleged by the present respondent no. 2 that the petitioners continue to encroach upon the common area of the building, obstructing easement and other rights of remaining residents. The present respondent no. 2 has also disclosed registration of FIR No. 398/2022 by PS Vasant Kunj (North) against the petitioners in this regard in addition to certain NCR information.

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that all those allegations as mentioned in the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC are false and are denied.

¶22

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - KATHPALIA 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:15 -08'00'

¶23

CM(M) 2193/2025

¶24

Page 2 of 3 pages

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.11.2025 17:43:34

¶27

It is made clear that the purpose of taking note of above mentioned contents of the impleadment application of respondent no. 2 is only to show that he is not a stranger to the subject matter, intending to blackmail the petitioners. The purpose is to point out that respondent no. 2 is a party affected by the allegedly unauthorized construction carried out and/or being carried out by the petitioners.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners also refers to the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Madhur Krishan Dhingra vs. D.M.C. North & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 13129 and requests for clarification that respondent no. 2 shall be granted only restrictive hearing and not hearing as a party to the proceedings. That is obvious. The basic principle laid down in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta ( supra ) is that no third party can join the statutory appeal under DMC Act, which appeal is between the aggrieved persons and the MCD, so what is being permitted is only restrictive hearing before the ATMCD.

¶29

In view of above discussion, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the petition as well as the accompanying applications are dismissed.

¶30

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b 40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:01 -08'00'

¶31

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶32

NOVEMBER 17, 2025

‘ rs’

CM(M) 2193/2025

Page 3 of 3 pages

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.11.2025 17:43:34

Pushpinder Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpinder Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazra Khatoon Vs Mohd. Zafar & Ors.

Poonam Madan Vs Siddhartha Sankar Sarmah

Cg Power and Industrial Solutions Limited Vs Indusind Bank & Ors.

Shruti Arora Vs Varun Arora

Chiranjeev Singh Vs Kamal Jeet Singh

Kunal Sharma Vs Lokendra Katara

Vineet Taneja Vs Ritu Taneja

Vichitra Prestressed Concrete Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs Sh. Rajesh Jain

Nazra Khatoon Vs Mohd. Zafar & Ors.

Cg Power and Industrial Solutions Limited Vs Indusind Bank & Ors.

M/S Richa Constructions Co. Vs M/S Nbcc (India) Ltd.

Sumit Goel Vs Amit Goel and Others

Vijender Tanwar Vs Girwar (Now Deceased) through Agent/Legal Representative Anand Tyagi & Anr.

M S Ec Constructions P Ltd. Vs Neeraj Zutshi and Anr.