Delhi District Court
Om Prakash vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 2 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMAR-V DISTRICT
JUDGE-04 NORTH WEST DISTRICT ROHINI, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
RCA DJ No. 48/2023
CNR No. DLNW010093732023
1. Shri Om Prakash,
S/o Late Jagan Singh
R/o H. No. 39B, Village Rithala,
Delhi-110085
.... Appellant
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Dr. S.P.Mukhrjee Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.
2. Deputy Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Rohini Zone, Sector-5, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
3. The Station House Officer,
PS Vijay Vihar, Distt. Rohini,
Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi-110085
4. Chanda Saiful Islam
At Plot/House No. 9.
Khasra No. 87/11, Block-L,
Vijay Vihar Colony, Phase-II,
Delhi-110 085
MCD Ward Vijay Vihar No. 24.
Also at:
Chand Saiful Islam,
Proprietor M/s Chand Property & Builders,
B-779, Avantika, Sector-1, Digitally signed
by RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 1 of7 KUMAR Date:
2026.05.02
17:58:06 +0530
Rohini, Delhi-110 085 ... Respondents
Date of institution : 10.10.2023
Date of conclusion of argument : 08.04.2026
Date of judgment : 02.05.2026
APPEAL UNDER ORDER 96 CPC FOR SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2023 PASSED BY
MS.PRIYANKA RAJPOOT, JSCC- CUM-ASCJ-CUM GJ,
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI IN CS
SCJ-950/2023 TITLED AS "OM PRAKASH VS.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & OTHERS" AND
FOR RESTORATION OF MAIN SUIT TO ITS ORIGINAL
NUMBER.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant/plaintiff is challenging Order Dated 28.08.2023 Passed by Ld. JSCC- Cum-ASCJ-Cum GJ, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide which plaint has been rejected under order 7 rule 11 (a) CPC for not disclosing any cause of action and under Order 7 Rule 11
(d) CPC, being barred by the law.
Brief Facts Of The Case As Per Plaint
2. The plaintiff has filed the present case for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of property i.e. plot no. 9, Khasra no. 87/11, Block-L, Vijay Vihar Colony, Phase-2, MCD Ward Vijay Vihar No. 24, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred as 'suit property').
3. The plaintiff averred that he is a law-abiding citizen and a socially active individual. It is alleged that defendant no.
Digitally signed RCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 2 of7 by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.05.02 17:58:13 +0530
4, Chanda Saiful Islam, undertook the construction of the suit property without obtaining necessary sanction plan and permissions from MCD. On 11.06.2023, the plaintiff encountered ongoing unauthorized construction at the suit property and urged the workers to ensure safety precautions. The workers, however, dismissed his concerns, asserting that they were operating under the protection of MCD officials.
4. The plaintiff lodged complaints with defendant no. 2(Deputy Commissioner of MCD) and other relevant authorities, highlighting the ongoing illegal construction. No effective action ensued despite these complaints. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice under section 477/478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 read with section 80 of the CPC, aiming to halt the unauthorized construction. However, this effort proved futile as well. The unauthorized construction continued and even expanded, encroaching onto the Government MCD street with additional projections and chajjas.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5. Perusal of the record shows that appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against Respondents. The Ld. Trial court passed a detailed order stating that there was no cause of action and this suit was barred by law. The Ld. Trial Court therefore rejected the plaint vide order dated 28.08.2023.
6. In the present case Ld. counsel for plaintiff/appellant had argued that every citizen has right to file cases against unauthorized construction and the plaintiff being the resident of locality was taking action by filing the suit.
Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR RCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 3 of7 RAKESH Date: KUMAR 2026.05.02 17:58:18 +0530
7. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record, is of the considered view that a person residing in a particular locality does not, by that fact alone, acquire an indefeasible or unfettered right to seek injunctive relief in respect of every activity or event taking place within such locality. The grant of an injunction is predicated upon the existence of a legally enforceable right and a corresponding infringement thereof; thus, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the impugned act has a direct, proximate, and substantial bearing upon the life, liberty, or civil rights of the plaintiff, no cause of action can be said to accrue in his favour.
8. The plaintiff has not establish any nexus or legitimate interest in the subject matter of such disputes. It is further pertinent to note that even at the appellate stage, and during the course of submission by appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant has conspicuously failed to delineate or substantiate the precise civil or legal right alleged to have been violated, or to demonstrate any personal or legally protectable interest of the plaintiff in the controversy at hand. The absence of such foundational elements strikes at the very root of the maintainability of the suit, rendering the claim devoid of merit.
9. Moreover, If there is any illegal or unauthorized construction, it is for the government authority to look into the matter and to discharge their duties as per law. It is not for any other person not related with the matter to take upon itself a task of reforming the locality. A representative suit might have been possible but the same is not the case here and therefore appellant cannot be shown any indulgence.
Digitally signed by RAKESHRCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 4 of7 RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.05.02 17:58:23 +0530
10. Since the appellant has no personal interest in the suit property, the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act. More over, the appellant has no cause of action to file the suit before Ld. Trial court as no right of appellant has been infringed. The suit has been filed before Ld Trial Court without any locus. A plaint without a cause of action and without locus is also liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Moreover, if any illegal construction is going on in the suit property then certainly it will give cause of action in favour of Municipal Authority, however, it does not give cause of action in favour of appellant as no personal right of the plaintiff have been infringed.
11. In the judgment titled as Rajinder Motwani vs. MCD RSA No.243/17 dated 16.10.2017, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para no. 8 held as under :
"an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbour. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbor. Legal right to light and air is only in terms of section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882 which requires a cause of action to be laid out and proved that right to light and air has been enjoyed for 20 years and only on completion of 20 years there is right to acquisition by prescription in the easementary rights. It is relevant to note that even after acquisition of easemenatry rights of prescription, yet, right to injunction for a neighbor is not absolute and is covered by Section 33 of the Easement Act which requires that disturbance to the easementary rights must actually cause substantial damage to a neighbor and the infraction materially diminishes the value of the dominant heritage with the fact that there is material interference in the physical RCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 5 of7 Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.05.02 17:58:29 +0530 comfort of the neighbor of living in his own house or prevents the neighbor from carrying on his accustomed business in the dominant heritage/his own house. All these are factual aspects and admittedly there is no cause of action which is laid out in the plaint in terms of section 15 and 33 of the Easement Act that right to easement of the appellants/plaintiffs has become absolute as it has been enjoyed for 20 years and that in fact after rights to easement are acquired by prescription there is also a substantial damage to the appellants/plaintiffs or there is material interference in the physical comfort of the appellants/plaintiffs or the appellants/plaintiffs being prevented from carrying on his accustomed business in their own dominant heritage/own property."
12. Thus, from the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is clear that merely by virtue of being neighbour or resident of locality, a person does not become entitled to file a suit to restrain other from carrying illegal construction. In order to have locus, the party filing the suit must show that by virtue of such construction his legal right to air or water or light has been affected or such construction is going to be detrimental to his own property or his safety.
13. In the case in hand appellant have made general and vague allegations regarding infringement of personal rights. In view of the court, no personal right of appellant have been infringed or threaten to be infringed therefore appellant have no locus to file the suit before Ld. Trial Court as no cause of action arises in his favour. Therefore, the present plaint is rightly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by Ld. Trial Court. In the view of this court there is no illegality or perversity in the order of Ld. Trial Court.
Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMARRCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 6 of7 RAKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.05.02
17:58:34
+0530
CONCLUSION
14. In view of above discussion, this court is of considered opinion that ld. Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 (a) CPC for not disclosing any cause of action and under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, being barred by the law. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed and order of Ld. Trial Court is affirmed.
Copy of this order along with TCR be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedRAKESH by RAKESH Announced in the open Court KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.05.02 17:58:40 +0530 on 2nd May 2026 (RAKESH KUMAR-V) DJ-04, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi RCA DJ No. 48/2023 Om Parkash Vs. MCD & Ors. . Page 7 of7