Delhi District Court
Sh Amit @ Gola vs Sh Kamlesh And Anr on 20 December, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE - 07, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. :- 422/2022
CNR NO.DLWT010042902022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SHRI AMIT @ GOLA
S/o Shri Darshan
R/o WZ-289-A, Near Balmiki Chaupal,
Village Basai Darapur,
New Delhi. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.SMT. KAMLESH W/o Sh. Kartar, R/o H.No. WZ-289, Near Balmiki Chaupal, Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
2. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Through its Commissioner, Civil Central, New Delhi. .... Defendants Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 1 of 222
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND FOR DAMAGES Date of institution of the Suit : 09.05.2022 Date of Judgment was reserved : 18.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 20.12.2025 ::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the following reliefs :
A. A decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant no.1, her agents, associates, attorney, labour etc. from raising any illegal and unauthorized construction at the property bearing no. 289, Balmiki Chopal, Basai Darapur, Near Moti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) till the final disposal of the present suit; B. A decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no.2 to remove / demolish the entire illegal and unauthorized construction at the suit property; and C. A decree of damages against defendant no.1 to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.Page 2 of 22
3
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff is the resident of WZ-289-A, Near Balmiki Chaupal, Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi while defendant no.1 is his neighbour occupying the adjoining house i.e. the suit property. 2.2. In the year 2022, defendant no.1 alongwith her sons started raising illegal and unauthorised construction at the suit property and dug the foundation, which caused cracks and dampness in the house of plaintiff. 2.3. Upon this, the plaintiff requested defendant no.1 not to cause any harm to his house but instead of mending her ways, she alongwith her sons entered his house and extended threats of dire consequences and further warned him not to file any complaint before any competent authority against them. 2.4. Due to the aforementioned threats, the plaintiff got frightened and did not file complaint against the illegal and unauthorised construction raised by defendant no.1 at the suit property.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 3 of 224
2.5. Due to digging of foundation / excavation and unauthorized construction carried out by defendant no.1 at the suit property, the house of the plaintiff has bent / slanted and cracks and dampness have developed in its walls and his house is now in dilapidated condition.
2.6. On 15.02.2022, the plaintiff again requested defendant no.1 and her sons with folded hands to get his house repaired but she did not pay any heed to his request and rather started abusing him and his family members. Upon hearing the hue and cry, the neighbours gathered at the spot and advised defendant no.1 and her associates to get the house of the plaintiff repaired. 2.7. Thereafter, on 25.02.2022, plaintiff made a written complaint against the unauthorised construction raised by defendant no.1 at the suit property to the office of defendant no.2 and also sent the copies to SHO concerned but no action was taken.
2.8. Before the initiation of unauthorised construction by defendant no.1 at the suit property, the plaintiff had got repaired his house about two years ago at the expense of Rs.4,00,000/-, but due to the aforesaid illegal construction, his house has suffered loss / damage and defendant no.1 and her sons are liable to compensate him by paying damages in the sum of R.4,00,000/-. Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 4 of 225
2.9. Defendant no.2 is also not taking any action against the illegal and unauthorized constructions raised by defendant no.1 at the suit property despite repeated requests and representations made by the plaintiff.
3. Summons for settlement of issues of the present suit were issued to the defendants vide order dated 25.07.2022 and after being duly served, they filed their respective written statements on 14.10.2022 and 14.11.2022.
4. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO.1.
4.1. The plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed true material facts and his claim is based on false, concocted, frivolous and baseless allegations, filed with the motive to extort money from defendant no.1 and cause harassment to her.
4.2. The present suit is a counter blast to the suit filed by the sister-in-law of defendant no.1 vide civil suit no.229/2021 titled as "Sunita Vs. Amit @ Gola and Anr", against the plaintiff.
4.3. The suit property falls in Lal Dora and hence, Municipal Laws are not applicable.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 5 of 226
4.4. The plaintiff also got registered a false FIR bearing no.516/2020, PS Moti Nagar against the son of defendant no.1, who had to secure anticipatory bail from Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
4.5. Defendant no.1 has not raised any illegal and unauthorised construction at the suit property and moreover, she partitioned the suit property admeasuring 70 sq.yds in two portions of 50 sq.yds and 20 sq.yds and the portion admeasuring 50 sq.yds adjacent to the house of plaintiff was renovated and since the area is less than 50 sq.meters, no sanction was obtained from the MCD.
4.6. The plaintiff only intends to extort money from her and no damage was caused to his house owing to the renovation work carried out by her son into his portion.
5. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO.2.
5.1. The present suit is barred by Section 80 CPC as well as Section 477 and 478 DMC Act.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 6 of 227
5.2. The part of suit property was booked under the relevant rules and provisions of the DMC Act for carrying out unauthorised construction, however, the demolition action could not be carried out. 5.3. The house of the plaintiff i.e. WZ-289 was also booked under the relevant rules and provisions of DMC Act for raising unauthorised construction.
6. Replication was not filed by the plaintiff, hence, right to file the same was closed vide order dated 30.01.2023.
7. Thereafter, based upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 30.01.2023:--
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction with respect to suit property, as prayed for? OPP. (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction with respect to suit property, as prayed for? OPP. (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages of Rs.4 lacs, as prayed for? OPP.
(4) Relief.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.Page 7 of 22
8
8. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of defendant no.2 / MCD, hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.01.2024.
9. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
9.1. In support of his case, plaintiff has examined the following witnesses:
(i) Sh. Amit @ Gola / plaintiff himself as PW-1; and
(ii) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar as PW-2.
PW-1 and PW-2 tendered their evidence affidavits Ex.PW-1/X and Ex.PW-2/X in their examination-in-chief.
9.2. PW-1 Sh. Amit @ Gola reiterated the averments made in the plaint and deposed that defendant no.1 is his neighbour and owner of House No. WZ-289, Near Balmiki Chaupal, Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi (suit property) and she alongwith her sons started unauthorised construction of their property without taking due precautions and the same resulted into cracks and dampness to his adjoining house, which ultimately got tilted due to the damage caused to his house.
9.3. PW-1 has deposed that when he protested against the unlawful construction of the house of the defendant, she and her sons entered into his house and threatened him with dire consequences. Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 8 of 229
9.4. PW-1 has deposed that the unauthorised / illegal construction done by defendant no.1 has caused severe damage to his adjoining house, which was got repaired by him just two years ago at the expense of Rs.4,00,000/-. 9.5. PW-2 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar also deposed on similar lines by alleging that defendant no.1 and her sons carried out unlawful construction at the suit property without following the security and safety measures and the same has caused severe cracks and dampness in the house of plaintiff Sh. Amit @ Gola. 9.6. PW-2 further deposed that despite several requests made by the neighbours and the plaintiff, defendant no.1 did not get the house of the plaintiff repaired and instead threatened him. 9.7. In his evidence, PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Photographs of the damaged wall of his house as Ex.PW-1/1; B. Photographs of the suit property showing construction activities as Ex.PW-1/2 (colly);
C. Copies of complaints sent to SHO, PS Moti Nagar and SDMC, Civic Centre, Delhi as Mark A1 and Mark A2 respectively; D. Photocopy of postal receipt of the complaints as Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR); and Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.Page 9 of 22
10
E. Site plan of the suit property as Ex.PW-1/5.
During cross examination, one photograph Ex.PW-1/D1 showing the window of his house, has been put to PW-1.
10. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff evidence was closed.
11. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
11.1. In support of her case, defendant no.1 herself stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex.DW-1/1 in her examination-in-chief.
11.2. DW-1 reiterated the averments of her written statement and deposed that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is a counter blast to the suit filed by her sister-in-law against him and neither any cracks nor any kind of bent have developed in the property of plaintiff owing to the renovation work carried out by son of defendant no.1 in his house.
11.3. DW-1 has further deposed that the plaintiff has filed a false case against her son as well wherein he had secured anticipatory bail from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FIR no. 516/2020, PS Moti Nagar.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 10 of 2211
11.4. DW-1 has further deposed that the plaintiff has filed the present suit just to harass her as she objected to the opening of a window by the plaintiff towards the suit property.
11.5. In her evidence, DW-1 has relied upon the following documents :
A. Photocopy of complaint to DCP, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Delhi dated 07.07.2020 by Ms. Sunita as Mark A;
B. Photocopy of complaint to SHO, PS Moti Nagar dated 15.10.2020 by Ms.Sunita as Mark B;
C. Three photographs of suit property as Ex.DW-1/C (Colly) (one photograph already exhibited in the cross examination of PW-1 as Ex.PW-1/D1);
D. Photocopy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.DW-1/D (OSR).
12. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant no.1, hence, defendant evidence was closed.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
14. My issue-wise findings are as under:--
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.Page 11 of 22
12
15. ISSUE NO.1.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction with respect to suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
And ISSUE NO.2.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction with respect to suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
And ISSUE NO.3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages of Rs.4 lacs, as prayed for? OPP.
15.1. Since all the aforesaid three issues are intertwined so they are taken up together for adjudication. The onus to prove all these issues is upon the plaintiff.
15.2. In the present suit, the plaintiff has pleaded that his house at WZ-289-A has suffered damage owing to the unauthorised / illegal construction carried out by defendant no.1 in her adjoining house i.e. the suit property. Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 12 of 2213
15.3. The plaintiff has pleaded that due to the construction activities carried out by defendant no.1, his house has suffered damage in the form of cracks and dampness and moreover, his house has got slanted / bent as well. 15.4. In rebuttal, defendant no.1 has pleaded that the plaintiff has filed the present false case against her owing to their previous enmity and litigation, with an object to extort money and cause harassment to her. 15.5. Defendant no.1 has pleaded that no damage has been caused to the adjoining house of plaintiff from the construction activities carried out by her son in the portion of the suit property.
15.6. To begin with, it is a well settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Gian Chand and Brothers Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh, AIR 2013 SC 1078. 15.7. In light of the aforesaid position of law, since the plaintiff has set up his entire claim against defendant no.1 alleging creation of cracks, dampness and bent in his house owing to the construction activities carried out at the suit Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 13 of 2214
property by the latter, so he is required to establish / prove the aforesaid allegation by way of evidence.
15.8. In other words, the Court is required to sift the material brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff for ascertaining / determining as to whether he has been able to establish the plea of loss / damage caused to his house arising / resulting from the construction activities carried out at the adjoining house i.e. the suit property or not.
15.9. At this stage, it is also relevant to underline the settled position of law to the effect that bald assertions of facts are of no use to the parties to the suit unless they are backed by the admissible evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Ragothaman, Civil Appeal no.9975-76 of 2024.
15.10. Now coming to the analysis of the material / evidence available on record.
15.11. The record reflects that the plaintiff has brought on record the following documents in the form of evidence for establishing his aforementioned oral assertion :
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.Page 14 of 22
15
A. Photographs showing dampness in the wall of his house as Ex.PW-1/1; B. Photographs showing construction activities carried out at the suit property as Ex.PW-1/2 (colly);
C. Photocopies of the complaints filed by him to the concerned SHO and Commissioner, MCD regarding the damage caused to his house due to the construction activities of defendant no.1 as Mark A1 and Mark A2 respectively;
D. Photocopy of postal receipts as Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR) and E. The site plan showing the location / position of his house and the suit property as Ex.PW-1/5.
15.12. It is trite to mention that from the aforesaid documents, only the photographs Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2 (colly) are relevant for establishing the damage suffered by the house of plaintiff, if any. 15.13. However, the material thing is that both the aforesaid documents are computer printouts and the record reflects that a duly issued certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act / 63 BSA has not been filed on behalf of the plaintiff for proving the same.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 15 of 2216
15.14. Section 65B of IEA deals with the admissibility of electronic record by prescribing the conditions under which computer outputs can be accepted as an evidence. It requires that for an electronic record to be admissible, the same must be accompanied by a certificate issued by a person having lawful control over the computer system generating that document, authenticating the contents of the record and the manner of production. 15.15. Moreover, while interpreting the different aspects of Section 65B IEA in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, Hon'ble Apex Court categorically observed that Section 65B IEA begins with a non-obstante clause and it is a complete code in itself governing the law on the point of admissibility of the electronic evidence and an electronic evidence / electronic record is inadmissible in law unless supported by a duly issued certificate under Section 65B IEA.
15.16. In view thereof, it is crystal clear that the photographs Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) are inadmissible in law.
15.17. For the sake of completion, it is also important to highlight that the complaints Mark A1 and Mark A2 filed by the plaintiff to the concerned SHO and Commissioner MCD are also inadmissible in law as they are photocopies, Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 16 of 2217
which is a form of secondary evidence defined under Section 63 Indian Evidence Act, inadmissible in law unless the conditions prescribed / specified in Section 65 IEA are satisfied.
15.18. It is apparent from the record that no effort has been made on behalf of the plaintiff for satisfying the requirements of Section 65 IEA. Hence, it is clear that the documents Mark A1 and Mark A2 are also inadmissible in law. 15.19. The entire aforesaid discussion reflects that all the material documents / evidence brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff for proving the alleged damage caused to his property deserves rejection since inadmissible in law. 15.20. Moreover, during his cross examination, the plaintiff / PW-1 Sh. Amit @ Gola admitted that alleged cracks and bend are not visible in the photographs placed on record by him.
15.21. Hence, it is clear that there is not an iota of evidence or material available on record, which could establish his allegation of creation of dampness, cracks and bend in his house.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 17 of 2218
15.22. At this stage, it is also important to understand that the plaintiff is not only required to establish the alleged damage to his house but also to bring on record evidence indicating / establishing the factum of aforesaid damage arising out of / emanating out of the construction activities carried out by defendant no.1 at the suit property.
15.23. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that in the cases of this nature where the plaintiff is alleging damage to his property owing to the construction activities in an adjacent house, the testimony / evidence of an expert witness / civil engineer is indispensable as the Court cannot presume that the damage suffered by the property of plaintiff is the outcome of the construction activities taking place in the adjacent property. 15.24. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff is grossly insufficient and fails to establish either the factum of the damage caused to his property or the same arising out of / emanating from the construction activities of defendant no.1 at the suit property.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 18 of 2219
15.25. An another important aspect of the present case is the following admission made by PW-1 Sh. Amit @ Gola in his cross examination dated 31.01.2024:
"It is correct that one Sunita had file case of the same nature as the present suit against me, but I do not remember the suit number of the said case, it is still pending. It is correct that said Sunita is sister-in-law (देवरानी) of defendant no.1. It is wrong to suggest that the present case filed by me is the counter blast of the case filed by Sunita against me. It is correct that I have filed a criminal case bearing FIR no. 516/2020, PS Moti Nagar, U/s 380 IPC against both sons of defendant no.1."
15.26. It is manifest from the aforesaid testimony of the plaintiff that he was having a previous enmity and history of litigation with the family of defendant no.1 and it is a well established principle in law that when there is evidence of previous enmity or ongoing litigation between the parties to a suit, the Court is obligated to scrutinise the evidence presented with greater care and caution and should always be mindful of the possibility that the claim / evidence may be influenced by malice or a desire for revenge, rather than a genuine pursuit of the truth / justice.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 19 of 2220
15.27. The aforesaid admission made by the plaintiff in his cross examination about his previous enmity with the family of defendant no.1 has probabilised the possibility of a false claim.
15.28. At this stage, it is relevant to highlight the well settled position of law that in a civil case, the preponderance of probability is the standard of proof and the said rule should be kept in mind while deciding the scale of sufficiency of evidence for proving a fact. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Goa through its Chief Secretary Vs. Maria Julieta D'souza (Dead) and Others, Civil Appeal no.722 of 2016. 15.29. The plaintiff has also sought damages to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from defendant no.1 for compensating him from the alleged loss. 15.30. Since this Court has already arrived at the conclusion that the evidence on record fails to prove / establish the alleged loss suffered by the house of plaintiff owing to the construction activities of defendant no.1 at the suit property. So it is obvious that the claim of plaintiff for Rs.4,00.000/- from defendant no.1 as damages also deserves rejection. Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 20 of 2221
15.31. Now coming to the plea of mandatory injunction sought by plaintiff thereby directing defendant no.2 to remove / demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorised construction carried out by defendant no.1 at the suit property. 15.32. The record reflects two important things. Firstly, defendant no.2 choose not to examine any witness for establishing the averments of its written statement, rendering them mere bald assertions of facts, inadmissible in law. Secondly, the plaintiff has not summoned any witness from the concerned Municipal Office for proving the construction raised by defendant no.1 at the suit property as illegal.
15.33. In a nutshell, there is not an iota of evidence available on record which could establish / prove that defendant no.1 carried out any kind of unauthorised construction at the suit property.
15.34. Hence, the claim of plaintiff seeking a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no.2 to demolish the construction carried out by defendant no.1 at the suit property also stands rejected. 15.35. The entire aforesaid discussion is concluded to the effect that the claim of the plaintiff stands dismissed due to lack of evidence. Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 21 of 2222
15.36. Accordingly, all the aforesaid three issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
16. RELIEF / CONCLUSION 16.1. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
19. File be consigned to record room.
MANOJ Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.20 Announced in the Open Court SHARMA 16:08:07 +0530 on 20th December, 2025.
(MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) DJ-07 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Shri Amit @ Gola Vs. Smt. Kamlesh And Anr.
Page 22 of 22