Omwati Dagar Vs Mukesh Dagar & Ors.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned DJ-03, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CSDJ/3869/2024 seeking following prayers:-

¶11

“1. Grant/Pass Ad-Interim Ex-parte Injunction in favour of the appellant and against the respondents thereby restraining them from carrying out any demolition/construction activities on his property bearing No. 188 and 189 Maidan garhi, near Old Chaupal, South Delhi-ll0068;

¶12

2. Grant/Pass Ad-Interim Ex-parte Injunction in favour of the appellant and against the respondents thereby restraining them from causing any further damage to the property bearing No. 189 Maidan garhi, near Old Chaupal, South Delhi-ll0068;

¶13

3. Pass an order setting aside the assailed impugned order

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 12/02/2026 at 13:37:11

¶16

dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Ld. DJ in CSDJ No. 3869/2024.”

¶17

Briefly stated, the appellant/plaintiff claims to be the owner and in possession of property bearing House No. 189, Maidan Garhi, near Old Chaupal, South Delhi , and alleges that respondent No.1 undertook unauthorized demolition and construction at the adjoining property bearing House No. 188, resulting in damage to the appellant’s structure. The case of the appellant is that both properties are old constructions and share a common wall, which, according to her, has been encroached upon during the course of construction.

¶18

The appellant had approached the learned Trial Court seeking restraint on further construction/demolition activities. When Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report dated 17.08.2024 along with photographs depicting the site position. Upon consideration of the record the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, declined to grant interim injunction, holding that the appellant had failed to satisfy the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on instructions, submit that the construction has already been completed.

¶20

In view of the above, nothing further survives for consideration. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of along with the pending application.

¶21

Needless to state, any construction carried out shall remain subject to

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 12/02/2026 at 13:37:11

¶24

the outcome of the suit and in accordance with applicable local laws.

¶25

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 6, 2026 na

¶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 12/02/2026 at 13:37:11

Omwati Dagar v. Mukesh Dagar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omwati Dagar v. Mukesh Dagar & 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

Smt Chanda Devi & Ors. Vs Union of India

Ajaib Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Attar Singh & Ors.

Sh. Rajiv Goel Vs Sh. Mahender Singh

M/S Modi Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited Vs M/S Laxmi Sales Corporation

Alok Kumar Dubey Vs State