Dismissed¶20

Mohammad Iqbal v. Shri Sardar Dalip Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Nov 2025CM(M)/2242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CM(M) 2242/2025, Justice Girish Kathpalia, order dated 20.11.2025: impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC (necessary party) dismissed by trial court on 15.10.2025 in injunction suit over installation of shutter at staircase entrance; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings after respondents no.2 & 3 stated they do not intend to install the shutter; parties Mohammad Iqbal v. Shri Sardar Dalip Singh & Ors.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage, if so required ¶20

Mohammad Iqbal Vs Shri Sardar Dalip Singh & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage, if so required

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC (as a necessary party) in respondent no.1's injunction suit against respondents no.2 & 3 was properly dismissed by the trial court (order dated 15.10.2025).

¶13

Court's answer

In view of respondents no.2 & 3's statement that they do not at present intend to install any shutter at the staircase entrance to the upper floors, the court permitted the petitioner to withdraw and dismissed the petition and the accompanying applications as withdrawn, with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage, if so required.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia) | CM(M) 2242/2025, order dated 20.11.2025 | Mohammad Iqbal v. Shri Sardar Dalip Singh & Ors. — The petitioner, a stranger to a suit for injunction filed by respondent no.1 to restrain respondents no.2 & 3 from installing a shutter on the ground floor of the subject premises, had sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC at the final-arguments stage, contending that the shutter would stand at the entrance of the staircase to the upper floors (some in his possession) and that he was therefore a necessary party; the trial court dismissed that impleadment application by order dated 15.10.2025, and the petitioner assailed that order before the High Court. Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 (Mr. Arhum Sayeed and Mr. Rahil Ahmed) then stated on their clients' behalf that they do not at present intend to install any shutter at the entrance of the staircase to the upper floors, upon which counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Bahar U. Barqi), on instructions, sought permission to withdraw. The High Court dismissed the petition and the accompanying applications (including CM APPL. 72890/2025 (stay)) as withdrawn, conferring liberty to institute appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage, if so required; CM APPL. 72891/2025 (exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions. No pronouncement was made on the merits of impleadment/necessary-party status.

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 2242/2025

¶4

MOHAMMAD IQBAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bahar U. Barqi, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI SARDAR DALIP SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arhum Sayeed and Mr. Rahil Ahmed, Advocates for R-2 & 3.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 20.11.2025

¶12

CM APPL. 72891/2025 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 2242/2025 & CM APPL. 72890/2025 (stay) 2. Petitioner has assailed order dated 15.10.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby his application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the suit between the present respondent no.1 and the present respondents no.2 & 3 was dismissed.

¶14

It appears that the present respondent no.1 filed a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the present respondents no.2 & 3 from installing a shutter on the ground floor of the subject premises. When the suit reached the stage of final arguments, the present petitioner, a stranger to the suit sought his impleadment on the ground that the shutter planned to be installed is at the entrance of the staircase to the floors above the ground floor, some of which

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:00:18

¶17

are in possession of the present petitioner, therefore, the present petitioner would be a necessary party.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 appearing on advance intimation makes a statement on behalf of his clients that at present, they do not intend to install any shutter at the entrance of staircase to the upper floors.

¶19

In view of the above statement of learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 3, the learned counsel for present petitioner on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage, if so required.

¶20

As requested, the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought.

¶21

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

¶22

NOVEMBER 20, 2025/ dr

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:00:18

Mohammad Iqbal v. Shri Sardar Dalip Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Iqbal v. Shri Sardar Dalip Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Agarwal Vs Religare Securities Ltd.

Sh Rajat Kapoor Vs Sh Br Sethi (Deceased) through Lrs

Wing Cdr Retd. Narender Singh Dhaka & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Geeta Sharma Vs Anju Dubey & Ors.

Housing Development Finance Corportion Ltd. Vs Vivek Gupta & Anr.

Om Fire Safety Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Umakant

Amit Kumar @ Babloo @ Bobi Vs Varuna Dhaka & Ors.

Bhairabh Ghosh Vs Malti Devi and Ors.

Amit Agarwal Vs Religare Securities Ltd.

Sh Rajat Kapoor Vs Sh Br Sethi (Deceased) through Lrs

Wing Cdr Retd. Narender Singh Dhaka & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rowena Sharma Vs Manju Gaur Dead

Mamta Rani Vs Deepak & Ors.

Manoj Shukla @ Vijay Vs Paramjeet Singh Kalsi & Anr.