Delhi High Court - Orders
Himanshu Joshi vs M/S Texmaco Infrastructure And ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 495/2025
HIMANSHU JOSHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Mr. Nandlal
Kumar Mishra, Mr. Onkar Nath
Sharma and Ms. Naina Garg,
Advocates..
versus
M/S TEXMACO INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOLDINGS LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Ms. Shambhavi
Pandey, Mr. Shikhar Misra, Mr.
Harshul Mehta, Advocates.
Ms. Manisha Gupta, AR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 10.11.2025 CM APPL. 68864/2025 By way of the present application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC'), the applicant/appellant seeks stay of further proceedings in the Execution Petition No. 972/2025.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned counsel appears for the respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and submits that they does not wish to file any reply to this application and would argue the application straight-away.
RFA 495/2025 Page 1 of 6This 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 21/11/2025 at 21:42:06
4. In view of the urgency expressed by learned counsel for the appellant, the application is taken-up for hearing today itself.
5. The court has heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant; as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the prayer made in the present application.
6. Briefly, vide impugned judgment dated 10.02.2025, the suit for recovery of possession, damages, and for permanent and mandatory injunctions filed by the respondent (plaintiff) has been decreed on an application filed by the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show, that the learned trial court has proceeded essentially on the basis of the response given by the appellant (defendant) to paras 3(c), 3(d), and 3(e) of the plaint. Paras 3(c), 3(d), and 3(e) of the plaint, as extracted in the impugned judgment, read as follows:
"11. The plaintiff avers in the Para-3(c), the Para-3 (d) and Para-3 (e) that the father (sic, grandfather) of the defendant was allotted the quarter in question by the plaintiff on 04.08.1976 as licensee by virtue of his services. The grandfather of the defendant ceased to be in employment of the plaintiff on 10.06.1982. The same paragraphs are reproduced here as under:-
"3(c) "That Shri Kewala Nand, the grandfather of the defendant was allotted the quarter in question by the plaintiff on 04.08.1976 as licensee by virtue of his services; that the grandfather of the defendant ceased to be in employment of the plaintiff on 10.06.1982; and hence became liable to handover the physical possession of the same to the plaintiff."
"3(d). "That the grandfather of the defendant did not hand over the possession of the quarter in question to the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the father of defendant before the concerned competent court; that during the trial of the said complaint, the grandfather of defendant expired on RFA 495/2025 Page 2 of 6 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 21/11/2025 at 21:42:06 24.03.1994 and his legal heirs including the father of defendant i.e. Shri Mohan Chand Joshi were impleaded as accused in the said complaint, that the grandmother of defendant of defendant Smt Kamala Joshi made a statement before the concerned Trial Court that LRs Mohan Chand Joshi and Mahesh Chand Joshi are not residing in the quarter-in- question and accordingly they were deleted from the array of accused in the said complaint."
"3(e). "That the grandmother of defendant was convicted for committing offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act by the court of Shri Gorakh Nath Pandey, ACMM, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide its order dated 02.06.2012; that the grandmother of defendant, in order to avoid sentence in the said complaint, handed over the physical and vacant possession of the quarter in question to the plaintiff on 01.06.2012 and accordingly an acknowledgment in this regard was also signed by the grandmother of defendant; that the plaintiff put its own locks on the said quarter and appointed security guards to look after the quarter; that the Learned Trial Court also recorded the said fact in its order dated 02.06.2012 and hence no sentence was passed against the grandmother of the defendant.""
8. In response to the averments made in the foregoing paras of the plaint, the appellant gave the following response in his written statement, which has been extracted in the impugned judgment:
"12. In response to this, the defendant has not shown in what capacity he has been residing in the suit property. The averments in the written statement in response to the Para 3(c), the Para 3(d) and Para 3(e) of the plaintiff are as follows:-
"3(c). That the contents of the corresponding Para 3 (c) is neither admitted nor denied for want of knowledge except the fact that Sh. Kewals Nand is the grandfather of the defendant."
"3 (d). That the contents of Para (d) to the extend it is matter of record needs no reply. Rest of the Para under reply is denied for want of knowledge."
"3 (e). That the contents of Para (e) being the matter of record needs no reply. It is denied that the grandmother of the defendant, in avoid to sentence RFA 495/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 21/11/2025 at 21:42:06 in the said complaint, handed over physical and vacant possession of the said quarter to the plaintiff on 01.06.2011 and accordingly acknowledged in this regard and also signed the same. It is submitted that once the father of the plaintiff was not in the possession of the entire quarter and he was only in possession of half of the portion then how he could have transferred the possession as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further denied that the plaintiff put its locks on the quarter in question and appointed security guards to look after the same."
"13. Apparently, the defendant has not shown in what capacity he has been residing in the suit property. He has no right and title over the suit property. In response thereto, the defendant avers that the quarter in question is owned by the government. The plaintiff has filed on record the copy of the agreement to sell executed by the Delhi Improvement Trust in favour of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, the copy of order dated 03.01.1983 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Company Petition No. 59 of 1982 approving the scheme of arrangement between the Birla Mills and the plaintiff, wherein it was also approved that the employees of the Birla Mills shall become the employees of the plaintiff without interruption in services. The plaintiff has also filed the copy of mutation in favour of the plaintiff. The perusal of mutation order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the Tehsildar Civil Lines shows that the name of the company from M/s Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Lid to M/s. Texmaco Ltd and thereafter from Mis Texmaco Ltd. To M/s. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holdings Ltd as owners and occupiers of the land measuring 4300 sq. yds in Kh. No. 3 Delhi Gaon has been recorded in the revenue record."
(underscoring in original)
9. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, it is evident therefore, that the suit property, namely Quarter No. B-27, Ground Floor, Shivaji Lines, Roshanara Building, Shakti Nagar, Delhi was in the use and occupation of the appellant's grandfather viz., Shri Kewala Nand; and as per the records, the grandfather ceased to be in the employment of the respondent company as of 10.06.1982.
RFA 495/2025 Page 4 of 6This 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 21/11/2025 at 21:42:06
10. Furthermore, the learned trial court has observed that the appellant had failed to show in what capacity he was residing in the suit property, since no document was filed by the appellant before the learned trial court to evidence any such right.
11. Also, the learned trial court has duly addressed the objection taken on behalf of the appellant, that the suit property was not owned by the respondent company at all and was in fact 'government property', by referring to an agreement to sell executed by the Delhi Improvement Trust in favour of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited alongwith an order dated 03.01.1983 passed by this court in Company Petition No.59/1982 approving a scheme of arrangement between M/s Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited and the respondent, under which scheme the respondent became the owner and occupier of land ad-measuring about 4300 sq. yds. in Khasra No.3, Delhi Gaon, within which parcel of land the suit property is situate. The learned trial court has also observed, that subsequently, the suit property was mutated in favour of the respondent vide Mutation Order dated 09.06.2014 recorded by the Tehsildar, Civil Lines, Delhi.
12. The learned trial court has accordingly observed, that the defendant has no right or title over the suit property; nor is he even a statutory tenant in the property; and that therefore, the status of the appellant in the suit property is merely that of an illegal encroacher.
13. The learned trial court has also noted that the appellant was not claiming any rights against the respondent company by adverse possession, either.
RFA 495/2025 Page 5 of 6This 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 21/11/2025 at 21:42:06
14. Considering what has been recorded in the impugned order, and upon a conspectus of the submissions made, and the record before this court, no ground is made-out for granting any interim relief to the appellant.
15. The present application is accordingly dismissed.
CM APPL. 33453/202516. In view of the decision in the above application, the present application, which seeks essentially the same relief as CM APPL. No. 68864/2025, is also dismissed.
RFA 495/202517. Although the court was poised for final hearing of the main appeal, at request of Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, re-notify on 19th November 2025.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 ss RFA 495/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 21/11/2025 at 21:42:06