Delhi District Court
Najakat Ali vs Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur on 8 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RCA No.126/2017
1. NAJAKAT ALI
S/o Mr. Shareef Ahmad,
R/o 7236/1, Gali Telwali,
Ram Nagar, Paharganj,
Nabi Karim, New Delhi
Also At:
Shop No.7575/6,
Gali Tel Mill,
Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi
2. CHANDER PAL
S/o Mr. Panna Lal,
R/o 7412, Gali No.2,
Pila Katra Qutab Road, New Delhi
.......Appellants
(Plaintiffs before Ld Trial Court)
VERSUS
1. SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR
W/o Sh. S. Davinder Singh
R/o 7532, Gali Tel Mill,
Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
2. AMANPREET SINGH
S/o Sh. S. Davinder Singh
R/o 7532, Gali Tel Mill,
Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
3. SHER SINGH
S/o Sh. Devi Ram,
RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 1 of 15
R/o House No. AB-245,
Amar Puri, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi
Also at:
R/o 7532, Gali Tel Mill,
Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
4. TARA CHAND
S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal
R/o H. No.7422, Gali Tel Mill,
Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
5. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through its Commissioner
Office at : City Civic Centre
S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi
6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (S.P. ZONE)
North Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Idgah Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi
7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (S.P. ZONE)
North Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Idgah Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi
......Respondents
(Defendants before Ld Trial Court)
Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against Order dated
01.05.2017
Date of institution : 09.05.2017
Date of arguments : 23.04.2018
Date of judgment : 08.06.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 to 4 and North Delhi Municipal Corporation and its RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 2 of 15 officials as defendant No.5 to 7, seeking injunction so as to restrain defendant No. 1 to 4 from raising unaurthorized / illegal construction in suit property bearing No.7532, Gali Tel Mill, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-55 and to demolish the already raised unauthorized structure in the said premises.
2. Without summon being issued, the suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 01.05.2017 on the ground that the plaintiffs had no personal interest in the suit property. Relevant para of the order is reproduced as under:-
"Perusal of the plaint and the memo of parties reveals that plaintiffs are not residing at the instant neighbourhood of the suit property. Plaintiffs have no personal interest in the suit property. Plaintiffs have not made any avernement in the plaint with regard to any infringement of their personal right by the defendants. Since the plaintiffs have no personal interest in the suit property, the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act. Hence, the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The same is accordingly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. File after due compliance be consigned to Record Room. No order as to costs."
3. Appeal against the said order was filed on 09.05.2017, i.e. within period of limitation of 30 days from the date of order. Grounds of appeal are stated on page 10 to 13 of the appeal and the relevant grounds with respect to the locus standi of plaintiffs are grounds C to J, which are reproduced as under:-
"C. Because the Learned Trial Court has not discussed in the impugned order that the unauthorized constructions beeing carried out over the property in question without obtaining the prior permission / sanction plan / site plan from the concerned department of Respondents No.5 to 7 as fully disclosed in paras 6, 9, 11 & 13 of the Plaint.
D. Because the Learned Trial Court has wrongly observed that perusal of the Plaint and the Memo of Parties reveals that Plaintiffs are not residing at the instant neighbourhood RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 3 of 15 of the Suit property.
E. Because the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the shop of the Appellant No.1 from where he (the Appellant No.1) is doing carpentry work, is situated at the same row / lane after a gap of one shop where the Suit property is situated and the house of the Appellant No.2 is also situated near where the Suit property is situated which fully mentioned in para 8 of the Plaint.
F. Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated that one of the addresses of the Appellant No.1, as mentioned in the cause title of the Suit and Memo of Parties, is at Shop No.7575/6, Gali Tel Mill, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is situated at the same row / lane after a ga of one shop where the Suit property i.e. bearing No.7532 situated at Gali Tel Mill, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 is situated.
G. Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the electricity Bill filed with the Plaint which is in the name of the Appellant No.1 at the shop i.e. 7575/6, Gali Tel Mill, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is situated at the same row / lane after a gap of one shop where the Suit property i.e. bearing No.7532 situated at Gali Tel Mill, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 is situated.
H. Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the residence of the Appellant No.1 is also situated in the same locality where the Suit property is situated. I. Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the ID proofs of the Appellants in which their respective addresses mentioned and the residence of the Appellant No.2 is also situated near where the Suit property is situated.
J. Because the Learned Trial Court has wrongly observed that the plaintiffs have not made any averments in the Plaint with regard to any infringement of their personal right by the Defendants."
4. In light of the said grounds the point of determination in the present appeal is: Whether Learned trial court wrongly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by holding that plaintiffs have no personal interest in the matter and that suit is barred by Section 41 (j) of Specific Relief Act?
RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 4 of 15
5. As stated earlier, present suit is a suit against alleged unauthorized construction i.e. construction without sanctioned site plan and in violation of building by laws.
6. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have not alleged that the plaintiffs reside in immediate neighbourhood of the site where the construction is being carried out or that such unauthorized construction is otherwise causing any damage / injury etc. to the plaintiffs or to their property. There is no averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs have some personal interest in the relief claimed or that they have come to the court because they are aggrieved because of the alleged unauthorized construction.
Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the plaint are reproduced as under:-
"8. It is submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 & 2 and other residents of the locality on a number of times requested the Defendant No. 1 to 4 not to carry out illegal and unauthorized construction over the Suit property and the Plaintiffs and other residents of the locality further requested the Defendants No.1 to 4 not to further carrying out raising unauthorized illegal constructions over the suit property and also further requested them (the Defendants No. 5 to 7) to demolish the unauthorized and illegal constructions over the Suit property, since the Plaintifffs and other residents of the locality are being faced difficulty in their free movement in the area as the Defendant No.1 to 4 have put the construction materials on the main road which obstructing the free movement of the residents of the locality especially minor children, old aged persons and women. In adition, the Plaintiff No.1 & 2 are also affecting from the unauthorized and illegal construction being carried out by the Defendant No.1 to 4 over the Suit property as the shop of the Plaintiff No.1 from where he (Plaintiff No.1) is doing carpentry work, is situated at the same row / lane after a gap of one shop where the suit property is situated and the house of the Plaintiff No.2 is also situated near where the suit property is situated, but the Defendants No.1 to 4 did not pay any heed to the request of the Plaintiffs and other residents of the RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 5 of 15 locality regarding stopping / further carrying out / demolishing the unauthorized and illegal constructions over the Suit property. It is submitted that the illegal and unauthorized constructions being carried out by the Defendants No. 1 to 4 over the Suit property in a haphazard manner, without following the protective measure/safety, rules and norms and the walls in the suit property also being errected without any column and the same would be fallen at any moment and any untowards/causality can be happened, which would be injurious/fatal to the Plaintiffs and other local residents and as such the said unauthorized constructions caused great threats to the life of the Plaintiffs and other residents of the locality, hence the said illegal and unauthorized constructions are immediately required to be boked and stopped bythe Defendant No.5 to 7 and the Defendants No.1 to 4 further requested to prohibit/restrain from further raising unauthorized illegal constructions over the suit property. It would also result interference into the easementary rights of life, air and ventilation which the Plaintiffs as well as the other residents of the locality have been enjoying since long but due to illegal and unauthorized constructions over the suit property the said easementary rights of life, air and ventilation of the Plaintiffs and other residents of the locality are being affected/stopped/preventive.
9. It is submitted that the illegal and unauthorized construction over the Suit property which are being carried out by the Defendant No.1 to 4 without obtaining the site plan/sanctioned plan from the concerned Department of MCD. The Defendants No.1 to 4 have achieved their illegal constructions upto ground floor and they are further trying to raise unauthorized and illegal construction over the Suit property in a day and night at war footing. The illegal and unauthorized constructions which have been carried out by the Defendants No.1 to 4 over the suit property had only been possible as the officials of the Defendants No.5 to 7 turned their eyes blind from the said unauthorized and illegal constructions. The photographs showing the illegal and unauthorized constructions over the Suit property as also shown in red colour in the site plan where the unauthorized and illegal constructions being carried out by the Defendants No. 1 to 4, annexed with the List of Documents along with RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 6 of 15 Documents annexed with the Plaint."
7. From the reading of the plaint, it is clear that the suit is filed by plaintiffs not because they are personally aggrieved by the construction going on at the site, but for the reason that the plaintiffs face difficulty in the free movement in the area as defendant No.1 to 4 have put construction material on the main road which is obstructing free movement of the resident of locality.
8. Thus, the question is narrowed down to: Whether plaintiffs being aggrieved because of the obstruction caused in free movement due to the construction material kept on the main road by defendant No. 1 to 4, can file a suit against unauthorized construction, even if they are not immediate neighbour of the said defendants and their properties also do not touch the site where the alleged construction is going on?
9. In support of his argument regarding maintainability of the suit, learned counsel for appellants has relied upon judgment titled Nazeer Hussain Vs. Neeta Goel2011 (178) DLT 660.
In the said judgment it was observed by hon'ble High Court that it is a the right of every citizen to see that building by laws are followed and unauthorized construction are not carried out in the neighbourhood and unauthorized construction creates civic problems for the entire neighbour hood and affects material rights of the neighbours. As per the said judgment the neighbours have right to approach the court against unauthorized construction.
10. On the basis of the said judgment, the appellants claimed that as shop of plaintiff No.1 is situated in the same lane in which the construction site is located and that too after a gap of one shop only, hence, plaintiff No.1 being a neighbour, in view of the RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 7 of 15 aforesaid judgment, has the locus standi to file suit against such unauthorized construction.
11. However, at this stage, the court would like to reproduce one sentence from the said judgment to show that in the said case the aggrieved party was in occupation of the immediately adjoining property and for that reason the locus standi of the said neighbour who was in occupation of the immediately adjoining property was upheld. The relevant sentence is as under:-
"The petitioner is a neighbourer residing in property No.3651, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi. He filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of unauthorized construction being made in the adjoining property against the respondents and gave the adjoining property as 3645, Pahari Dheera. He also filed site plan of the adjoining property."
11.1. In the present case, even plaintiff No.1 is not in possession of adjoining property and it has been admitted by the plaintiffs in para 8 of the plaint that there is a shop between the shop of plaintiff No.1 and the site where the alleged construction is going on. Thus, none of the plaintiffs are directly affected by the unauthorized construction allegedly going on at the site, though they may be aggrieved by the fact that their free movement has been restricted because defendant No.1 to 4 have put construction material on main road, but then no injunction has been claimed so as to restrain defendant No.1 to 4 from putting construction material on the main road. The only relief claimed in the plaint is to restrain defendant No.1 to 4 from raising unauthorized construction at the suit property and also to demolish the already raised unauthorized construction, though the plaintiffs rights are not directly affected by the said unauthorized construction.
RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 8 of 15
12. The appellants / plaintiffs neither in the plaint nor in the appeal alleged or clarified as to how they are personally affected by the alleged construction at the site. It may be noted that it has also not been pointed out that as to which building by laws have been violated in the construction of said property. The suit is filed merely on basis of one bald averment i.e. "that the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried outby the defendant No.1 to 4 over the suit property in a hape-hazerd manner, without following protective measure / safety, rules and norms and the walls in the suit property also being errected without any column and the same would be falled at any moment and any untoward casualty can be happend, which would injurious / fatal to the plaintiffs and other local residents and as such the said unauthorized construct caused great threat to the life of plaintiffs and other residents of the locality, hence, the said illegal and unauthorized construction are immediately required to be booked and stopped by the defendant No.5 to 7 and the defendant No.1 to 4 further requested to prohibit / restrain from futher raising unauthorized construction over the suit property. It would also result interferance in the easmentary rights of life, air and ventilation which the plaintiffs as well as the other residents of the locality have been enjoying since long but due to illegal and unauthorized constructions over the suit property the said easmentary rights of life, air and ventilation of the plaintiffs and other residents of the locality are being affected / stopped / preventive".
13. Though, it is mentioned that easementary rights of the plaintiffs shall be effected by the unauthorized construction at suit RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 9 of 15 premises, but it is not clarified as to how the easementary rights of the plaintiffs who are not residents / occupants of the adjacent properties will be affected by unauthorized construction. It is also not mentioned as to what kind of easmentary rights shall be affected by unauthorized construction in the suit property.
14. Section 38, 39 and 42 of Specific Relief Act are reproduced as under:-
"38. Perpetual injunction when granted .(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the Court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II. (3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiffs right to, or enjoyment of, property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
39. Mandatory injunctions .When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing, the Court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.
41. Injunction when refused .An injunction cannot be granted
(a)............
............
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter." (emphasis supplied)
15. Section 38 and 39 of the Act, provides that injunction may be granted to prevent breach of an obligation existing in favour of plaintiffs and Section 41 (j) further clarifies that it is besides the requirement of existence of obligation in favour of plaintiffs, it is RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 10 of 15 also necessary that plaintiffs have personal interest in the matter in which injunction is sought.
16. It may be noted that the learned Trial Court as well as this court are bound by the provision of Specific Relief Act and if the said Act provides that the injunction cannot be granted where plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter, then this court or learned Trial Court cannot override the said provision of law.
17. The order of learned Trial Court has to be within the four corners of the law applicable to learned Trial Court and neither the said court, nor this court, can travel beyond the scope of written and crystalized law, as legislated by the legislature.
18. As per the plaint the plaintiffs have no personal interest in the alleged unauthorized construction and no personal interest of the plaintiffs is adversely affected by the alleged construction, hence, as per Section 41 (j) of Specific Relief Act the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction. Learned Trial Court has rightly observed in the order that the plaintiffs have no interest in the subject matter of the suit and without such interest a suit for injunction is not maintainable.
19. A similar question in writ jurisdiction come up before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in judgment tiled Ashraf Abubakkar Ansari Vs. Commissioner 2012 SCC online Guj 1042. The observation made by Hon'ble High Court, while holding in the said case that the petitioner was not "person aggrieved", are as under:-
"6. Before examining the principles of law laid down in the above- mentioned judgments, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has not filed the petition in the public interest and is seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent authorities to take 'legal action' against the alleged illegal construction being put up by respondents Nos.3 and 4. When a writ of mandamus is being sought by the petitioner, the first question to be determined by this Court would be whether the petitioner is a 'person RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 11 of 15 aggrieved', so as to entitle him to maintain the petition, or not.
15. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Onkar Nath v. Ram Nath (Supra) wherein it is held that, where A, neighbour of B, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining B from raising construction, A would be entitled to get an ad- interim injunction restraining B from proceeding with the unauthorized construction, without obtaining sanction for the same from the concerned authority, because illegal, unauthorized construction, would materially affect the right and enjoyment of A's property and if the construction is allowed to be completed, it would be difficult to get the said structures demolished, later on. The observations of the Delhi High Court are made in the context of the facts before it.
16. In the present case, the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 are residents of the same Co-operative Housing Society, but it is not the case of the petitioner that respondents Nos.3 and 4 are his immediate neighbours, or that the construction being put up by them is materially affecting the rights of the petitioner to enjoy his property or causing him hardship in any manner. The petitioner has purchased Plot No.C-6 whereas respondents Nos.3 and 4 are owners and occupants of Plot No.B-69, B-70 and C-24, respectively. The judgment of the Delhi High Court would, therefore, not be relevant in the factual context of the present case. 19. The principal question which falls for determination by this Court is, who can said to be a 'person aggrieved'?
20. A Division Bench of this Court in Lalbhai Trading Company v.Union of India, reported in 2006(1) GLR 497 has examined several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (Supra); and certain English decisions, at length. After having done so, it has been held as below:
"14 On a conspectus of the aforesaid case-law, it becomes clear that the words 'person aggrieved' are required to be ascertained with reference to the purpose of the provisions of the statute in which they occur. The meaning may vary according to the context of the statute. However, one thing is certain, a person can be said to be aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him which may be in the form of being denied or deprived of something to which such person is legally entitled. [a] The meaning of the words 'aggrieved person' cannot be read as an expression which is rigid, exact and comprehensive. Apart from the content and intent of the statute, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the person's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the person are relevant factors. [b] The duty of the Court is to read into the statute, a duty to act fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. If a person suffers a wrong as a result of unfair treatment on the part of the authority, he is a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which decision has either wrongfully deprived him or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. In other words, the person must have suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest is prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority. [c] The grievance has to be his own beyond some grievance or RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 12 of 15 inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public. The test is: can the person be said to be entitled to object and be heard by the authority before the authority takes the impugned action. [d] The person has to be directly and immediately affected. An aggrieved party is one whose personal, pecuniary or property rights are adversely affected by another person's action or by a decree or judgment by a Court.
[e] An appeal can be preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal. The appellant must be a person aggrieved by a decree not merely by a finding. The person must be prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree. In other words, when a person is fastened with liability whereunder his property, of every type, is directly affected. To put it differently,is the person, by virtue of the decree, called upon to discharge a pecuniary liability so as to deprive him of his property. If the answer is yes, he is an 'aggrieved person'."
(emphasis supplied)
21. The principles of law enunciated by the Division Bench have been relied upon by this Court in Ganpat Mohanbhai Vasava v. Addl. Development Commissioner, AIR 2008 Gujarat
88.
22. Examining the case of the petitioner in light of the principles of law culled out by the Division Bench, and even if the words "person aggrieved" are not read in a narrow or rigid manner, then also, there should be some prejudice or injury or wrong suffered by a person. 'A person aggrieved' must have suffered a legal wrong or injury by some act of omission or commission of an authority, which is prejudicial to him. The petitioner has no personal interest in the alleged illegal construction being put up by respondents Nos.3 and 4. No pecuniary or property right of his is stated to be adversely affected. It is not the case of the petitioner that the alleged illegal constructions are causing him hindrance, hardship or inconvenience in any manner. It should be noted that the petition has not been filed in the public interest. The petitioner has already apprised the concerned authorities regarding the alleged illegal construction being carried on by respondents Nos.3 and 4 and has specifically prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents authorities to take legal action/step against the alleged illegal construction "as per the representations made by the petitioner". In short, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus,directing the respondents to act as per the representations made by him.
26. As already stated hereinabove, the petitioner is not personally affected by the alleged illegal construction being put up by respondents Nos.3 and 4. Neither is the petitioner the immediate neighbour of the said respondents. There is no material on record to the effect that any legal right of the petitioner has been infringed or violated, by the alleged illegal acts of respondents Nos.3 and 4. It is true that the petitioner has made representations to the concerned authorities. However, once the Court arrives at a conclusion that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner is not a 'person aggrieved', then a mandamus cannot be issued to the concerned authorities to act in accordance with RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 13 of 15 the representations made by the petitioner. Insofar as the duties and obligations of the statutory authorities are concerned, this Court would have nothing further to say than, the said authorities are bound to fulfill the statutory duties and obligations entrusted upon them by law. The concerned respondents are not estopped form taking note of the representations made by the petitioner. However, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to them at the behest of the petitioner, for this purpose. Nor can it be held that the respondent authorities are lacking in the performance of their statutory duties and obligations. As a citizen, it is open to the petitioner to take up the representations made by him with the respondent authorities and it is open to the said authorities to take note of the representations, and if necessary, take appropriate action. However, a writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be issued. It would not be appropriate to permit the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to exert pressure upon the respondents, in a case where the petitioner is not a 'person aggrieved', so as to maintain the petition.
20. In light of the said observation of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and interpretation of Section 38, 39 & 41 (j) of Specific Relief Act, in the opinion of the court the suit of the plaintiffs was rightly rejected by learned Trial Court under Section 41 (j) of Specific Relief Act and point of determination is answered against the appellants.
21. It may be argued that unauthorized construction is a growing menace and if public spirited persons or residents of locality are not permitted to challenge such construction before the court, the same may embolden those who carry out such construction. However, that is not the case, because even in civil court representative suits can be filed i.e. suit can be filed under Section 91 of CPC. As per Section 91 of CPC in case of public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public a suit for declaration and injunction or for such other relief may be instituted with the leave of the court by two or more persons, even though no special damage is caused to such persons. Thus, public spirited persons or residents of the locality can come together and approach civil court for action against unauthorized RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 14 of 15 construction and seek leave of the court to institute suit under Section 91 of CPC. The benefit is that such a suit once instituted with leave of the court can not be compromised without the leave of the court, which curtails filing of frivolous cases by individuals under the garb of public interest, only to be compromised for money subsequently. Therefore, even the aforesaid argument, if raised, is without merits.
22. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
23. Copy of the order be sent to Ld Trial Court.
24. File be consigned to record room and Trial Court record be sent back.
Announced in the Digitally signed by SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER
open court on 08.06.2018
SINGH LALER Date: 2018.06.08 16:33:25
+05'30'
(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER)
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA No.126/2017 Najakat Ali Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur 15 of 15