Disposed¶31

Sh. Rajvir @ Rajbir v. Naresh Yadav & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Mar 2025FAO/47/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO 47/2025, Rajvir @ Rajbir v. Naresh Yadav & Ors., Delhi High Court, Dharmesh Sharma, J., 03.03.2025; interim injunction; Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC; Section 104 CPC; appeal against rejection of temporary injunction; Local Commissioner reports; demolished property and fresh construction; GRAP IV restrictions; ancestral property claim versus subsequent purchaser in possession; disposal on statement of counsel; direction not to raise construction except in accordance with law; MCD and SHO PS Mehrauli respondents.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, with respondent no.1/defendant directed not to raise any construction in the property except in accordance with law; pending application disposed of; CM APPL. 12410/2025 (exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Sh. Rajvir @ Rajbir Vs Naresh Yadav & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the appellant/plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC (interim injunction) in CS DJ No. 4202/2024.

¶29

Court's answer

This Court found no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach in the learned Trial Court's dismissal of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Nothing survived in the appeal; it was disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, directing respondent no.1/defendant not to raise any construction in the property except in accordance with law, in view of the statement of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 to that effect and the appellant's counsel having no objection.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Dharmesh Sharma, J.) disposed of an appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule CPC against the trial court's order dated 12.02.2025 rejecting the plaintiff's interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC in a suit for declaration, possession and injunction concerning 44 sq. yards out of khasra No. 175, C-14, Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab, Mehrauli. Relying on the Local Commissioner's reports (property demolished; new construction raised after the first inspection), the Court found no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach in the trial court's order. Recording the statement of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 (stated subsequent purchaser in possession) that he would not raise any construction/repairs except in accordance with law, and there being no objection from the appellant's counsel, the Court disposed of the appeal without prejudice to the parties' rights and contentions, directing respondent no.1/defendant not to raise any construction in the property except in accordance with law.

¶1

$~89

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 47/2025 & CM APPL. 12409/2025

¶4

SH. RAJVIR @ RAJBIR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, Ms. Preeti Kumari and Ms. Tamanna S., Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

NARESH YADAV & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhavishya Mehra, Mr. Aditya and Mr. Pratisth, Advs. for R-1.

¶7

Mr. Ranjeet Pandey, Standing Counsel with Miss Mansa, Adv. for R-2/MCD.

¶8

Mr. Manish Kumar (SPC) for R-3 (SHO PS Mehrauli).

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶11

O R D E R % 03.03.2025

¶12

CM APPL. 12410/2025 – EXMP .

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

FAO 47/2025 & CM APPL. 12409/2025

¶16

The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“ CPC ”] assailing the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned District Judge-06 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi [“ trial Court ”] in CS DJ No. 4202/2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is present on advance notice. Learned counsels for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also present on advance notice.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. 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 07/03/2025 at 12:30:04

¶19

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, the factual matrix is that the appellant/ plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration, possession, permanent and mandatory injunction with regard to the property in question measuring 44 sq. yards out of 132 sq. yards ( khasra No. 175) situated at C-14, Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab, Mehrauli, South Delhi-110030.

¶20

The appellant/plaintiff claims that the property in question is an ancestral property in nature and he derives the right, title and interest thereto from his ancestors. The respondent No.1 is stated to be a the subsequent purchaser of the property in question and admittedly in possession of the property in question, having bought the same from one of the co-owners of the property in question.

¶21

It appears that during the course of proceedings, the learned trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner, who visited the premises on 23.11.2024 and submitted a report to the following effect:

¶22

That suit property is demolished and no one is residing in it.

¶23

That suit property was under construction, however, the construction is presently halted due to pollutionrelated concerns i.e. Grap IV restrictions.

¶24

None of the parties were able to share title deed/documents qua the suit property

¶25

It appears that subsequently, on an application moved by the appellant/plaintiff, the Local Commissioner visited the premises again on 11.01.2025 pursuant to directions of the learned Trial Court and submitted a report to the following effect:

¶26

New construction has been raised on the suit property after the inspection was done by the previously appointed local Commissioner.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 07/03/2025 at 12:30:04

¶29

This Court is unable to find any illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/defendant states that since evidently the respondent No.1 is owner and in possession of the property in question, he shall not raise any construction/repairs except in accordance with the law.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has no objection if the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statement. 18. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties directing the respondent no.1/defendant not to raise any construction in the property except in accordance with law.

¶32

The pending application also stands disposed of.

¶33

DHARMESH SHARMA, J

¶34

MARCH 3, 2025/ sm

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 07/03/2025 at 12:30:04

Sh. Rajvir @ Rajbir v. Naresh Yadav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Rajvir @ Rajbir v. Naresh Yadav & 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

Harit Nurseries Welfare Association (Regd.) and Anr. Vs Delhi Developement Authority and Ors.

Danish Miyan Vs Hiba Alvi

Hcc Vccl Joint Venture Vs Union of India & Ors.

Forest Development Corporation of Maharastra Ltd. Vs V.K. Gupta & Ors.

M/S Minosha India Ltd. Vs M/S Misra Automatics Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Minosha India Ltd. Vs M/S Misra Automatics Pvt. Ltd.