Rajesh Malhotra & Anr. Vs Vikram Panwar & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Malhotra & Anr. Vs Vikram Panwar & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal and pending applications disposed of; interim directions of this Court's order dated 10.03.2025 made absolute till the pendency of the suit — the appellant/plaintiff may reconnect pipes to the water tanks installed on the roof and shall not be denied access to the terrace to maintain the water tank, with the SHO concerned to ensure compliance in case of any hindrance by the respondents; merits not gone into.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim arrangement of 10.03.2025 (permitting the appellant/plaintiff to reconnect pipes to the rooftop water tanks and access the terrace for maintenance) should be made absolute during the pendency of suit CS DJ 873/2023. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the undertaking given on behalf of the appellant (that he would not create any equity if the arrangement continued during the pendency of the suit), the appeal along with the pending applications was disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The directions contained in the order dated 10.03.2025 (reconnection of pipes to the rooftop water tanks, access to the terrace for maintenance, and SHO assistance in case of hindrance) were made absolute till the pendency of the suit.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case and the contentions remain unheard; the order dated 10.03.2025 was treated as only an interim arrangement.ratio¶22
The respective rights of the parties, as stated to be governed by the respective sale deeds, were left to be determined at the Trial.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.), order dated 05.05.2026 in FAO 54/2025: Appeal by Rajesh Malhotra & Anr. against the order dated 22.02.2025 of the District Judge, Saket (South East District) in CS DJ 873/2023, whereby the appellant/plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was dismissed and the interim order of 01.12.2023 was vacated. Relying on the Local Commissioner's report dated 23.12.2023 (two water tanks and two disconnected pipes running from the terrace to the appellant's portion) and the appellant's undertaking not to create any equity, the Court disposed of the appeal and made the interim directions of its order dated 10.03.2025 absolute till the pendency of the suit: the appellant/plaintiff may reconnect pipes to the rooftop water tanks and access the terrace for maintenance, with the SHO concerned to ensure compliance against any hindrance by the respondents. The respondents had objected, stating that the respective sale deeds (dated 31.10.2005 and 28.01.2008) specify where the water tanks are to be kept. The respective rights of the parties under the sale deeds were left to Trial; the Court expressly did not go into the merits and the contentions remain unheard.

$~26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- FAO 54/2025 & CM APPL. 14123/2025

CM APPL. 23519/2025

RAJESH MALHOTRA & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Umang Tyagi and Mr. Zuber Ali, Advocate

versus

VIKRAM PANWAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nishant Nain, Ms. Charu Sharma and Mr. Chandarjeet Yadav, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 05.05.2026

The present appeal arises in context of an order dated 22.02.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Saket (South East District), in CS DJ 873/2023, whereby, the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 came to be dismissed, and the interim order dated 01.12.2023 passed in favour of the appellant was vacated.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that before passing the impugned order, a Local Commissioner was appointed who submitted a report dated 23.12.2023, noting, inter alia, the existence of two water tanks and two disconnected pipes running from the terrace to the appellant’s portion. Accordingly, while issuing notice on 10.03.2025, this Court had directed as under:-

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 11/05/2026 at 12:31:24

“ In the meanwhile, the appellant/plaintiff shall not be restrained from reconnecting their pipes to the water tanks which are installed on the roof by employing a plumber and shall not be denied access to the terrace to maintain the water tank. In case any hindrance is caused by the respondents, the SHO concerned shall ensure that this order is complied with.”

Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that he would not create any equity in case this arrangement is allowed to be continued during the pendency of the suit.

Learned counsel for the respondent, however objects to the same, stating that the respective sale deeds, dated 31.10.2005 and 28.01.2008, also specifically mention as to the portion where the respective water tanks are to be kept.

Considering that the order dated 10.03.2025 is only an interim arrangement, besides the respective rights of the parties, as stated to be governed by the respective sale deeds, would be a matter of Trial.

In view of the undertaking given on behalf of the appellant, the appeal alongwith the pending applications is disposed of.

The directions contained in order dated 10.03.2025 are made absolute till the pendency of the suit. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the contentions remain unheard.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

MAY 5, 2026 sn

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 11/05/2026 at 12:31:24