learned Appellate Court, while considering the aforesaid appeal, has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to file present status of the action being taken or already taken, with respect to the unauthorized construction in question. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on the very point of maintainability, the suit had been rejected and the learned Appellate Court should have confined itself to the aforesaid aspect only and, merely, because the appeal is pending consideration, it should not have sought any action taken report from MCD. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is habitual litigant and is in habit of filing similar kind of suits with respect to many others and, perhaps, his intent and object is to extort money and to blackmail others. 6. Learned counsel for MCD appears on advance notice and submits that they would abide by any direction to be passed in this regard by this Court. 7. The Appellate Court is testing the veracity and correctness of order dated 28.08.2023 passed by learned Trial Court whereby the suit has been rejected. As already noticed above, the rejection of the suit is on the point of maintainability as, according to learned Trial Court, there is no personal interest involved and plaintiff has not even specified in the plaint as to how his any legal or fundamental right was going to be infringed by the alleged construction activities being carried out by defendant no. 4 (petitioner herein). The relief of declaration has also been declined, observing that it is equitable remedy and the Court has discretion to grant and refuse such relief, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, very clearly, the learned Trial Court was of the view that plaintiff had failed to elucidate his specific legal character and it was in the aforesaid backdrop that suit was rejected under Section VII Rule 11 (a) CPC and Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. 8. The scope of appreciation for the learned Appellate Court is, therefore, confined to the aforesaid aspect only and it seems that plaintiff/appellate is going
