Delhi District Court
Naresh Khanna vs Madan Lal Solanki on 11 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEV SAROHA
CIVIL JUDGE-04 (WEST) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ no. 928/2023
CNR no. DLWT03-001890/2023
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal Khanna,
R/o, M-397, Top Floor,
Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi -110087.
.....Plaintiff
VS
1. Mr. Madan Lal Solanki,
Through M/s Shinex Car SPA,
R/o, M-397, Ground Floor, Front Portion,
Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi -110087.
2. Mr. Sita Ram Solanki,
R/o, M-397, Ground Floor, Back Portion,
Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi -110087.
3. Mr. Ashok Sachdeva,
R/o, M-397, First Floor,
Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi -110087.
4. Mr. Jagjeet Singh,
S/o Lt. Col. Late Mohinder Singh,
R/o, M-397, Second Floor,
Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi -110087.
.....Defendants
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 1/12
Date of institution of the suit : 25.07.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 27.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 11.03.2026
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT (Ex-parte)
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT 2.1. That, the plaintiff is owner of the premises bearing no.M-397, Top Floor, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087, including roof rights and parking in the drive way. 2.2. That, the defendant no.1 and 2 of are the owners of the ground floor property which was subsequently divided by the defendants no.1 and 2 by raising the wall in the property.
2.3. That, the defendant no.1 is the owner and in possession of front portion of the premises no.M-397, Ground Floor Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087, which he has let out to M/s Shinex Car SPA.
2.4. That, the defendant no.2 is owner and in of possession of the back portion of the premises bearing no.M-397, Ground Floor, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087, and is residing in the same after carrying out illegal construction.
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 2/12 2.5. That, the defendant no.3 is the occupier and is in possession of first floor of the premises bearing no.M-397, Guru Harkishan Nagar, New Delhi-110087. Paschim Vihar.
2.6. That, defendant no.4 is son of the deceased Lt. Col. Late Mohinder Singh who was the owner of the second floor of the premises bearing no. M-397, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087.
2.7. That, the defendant no.1 to 4 have raised unauthorized construction under their respective portions which are under their possession respectively.
2.8. That, the defendants had carried out massive additions and alterations against original plan of the property under their respective portions, which is illegal and dangerous for the entire building.
2.9. That, the defendant no.1 has carried out the following unauthorized and illegal construction in the portion under his possession:-
i) That, the defendant no.1 has removed the internal separating walls, including load bearing walls and converted the entire portion under his possession into a shop and defendant no.1 is illegally carrying out the commercial activities which is not permissible under law as he has let-out the entire portion to M/s Shinex Car SPA who are running garage/workshop/car washing in the premises under the ownership and possession of the defendant no.1.
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 3/12
ii) That, removal of the load bearing walls is not permissible as per law as it has rendered the entire building in danger. The plaintiff had objected to the said changes illegally carried out by the defendant no.1 but he has not bothered to stop the illegal construction in the portion under his portion.
iii) That, the defendant no.1 has illegally covered the setback area which was meant for car parking and the said portion i.e. the setback area was not owned by the defendant no.1 and he has illegally encroached upon the said setback area with the connivance of the defendant no.3, who is using roof of the same as his balcony.
iv) That, the defendant no.1 has illegally closed the shaft which is meant for sewerage and other pipes of the entire property including first, second and third floor and have merged the said area into his portion under his possession and by doing so, the defendant no.1 has violated the valuable rights of the other occupants of the said property, including the Plaintiffs.
v) That the defendant no.1 has illegally installed a submersible pump without the permission of Jal Board and other authorities inside a room.
vi) That the defendant no.1 has illegally placed a water storing tank along with the load bearing wall and due to leakage in the said water tank, the entire main load bearing wall is having water seepage and the same is dangerous for the entire building.
2.10. That, the defendant no.2 has carried out the following illegal construction/additions and alterations:-
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 4/12 i. That the defendant no.2 has constructed one kitchen, one room in the area of the parking mentioned above, the parking area is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 has no right, title or interest in the said parking area and as such, the defendant no.2 has no right to raise any construction in the car bay. The plaintiff raised objections why the defendant is illegally constructing the kitchen and room on the said area and all the requests of the plaintiff fell on deaf ears of defendant no.2 and the defendant no.2 did not bother to stop the unauthorized construction, despite the objection of the Plaintiff. ii. That the defendant no.2 has joined illegally constructed kitchen sewer pipe with the rain drain pipe of the building and such, the filthy water keeps on oozing out from the said joint in the pit which the defendant no.2 has illegally dug in the parking area.
iii. That the defendant no.2 has illegally removed the water meters from the back setback area and illegally installed them on the back side i.e. outer wall of the building and has illegally converted the entire setback area into the use of the defendant no.2 and converted into a room and bathroom.
iv. That the defendant no.2 has also illegally covered the shaft and has merged the said shaft area into his drawing room. v. That the defendant. no.2 installed an exhaust fan facing the top floor, consequently, foul smell keeps on oozing out of the shaft area of the upper floors.
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 5/12 vi. That the defendant no.2 has into the illegally trespassed into common area beneath the staircase and adjacent to the electricity meter and have illegally taken possession of the same.
vii. That the defendant no.2 has illegally put wire and strings in the parking area just in front of the entrance of the plaintiff and other residents of upper floors as the clothes are hanged on the wires and strings which put hindrance in ingrass and outgress of the premises.
viii.That the defendant no.2 has illegally kept Tulsi and other plants on the side wall of the parking area and regularly a Dia is lit up in front of the Tulsi plant which resulted in fire of the car of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has requested the defendant no.2 many times not to do so, but the defendant no.2 did not pay any heed of the request of the plaintiff.
ix. That the defendant no.2 has illegally installed a submersible pump without the permission of Jal Board and other authorities.
2.11. That, the defendant no.3 has raised unauthorized and illegally construction over and above the illegal construction raised by the residents of the ground floor in the front as well as in the parking area.
2.12. That, the defendant no.4 have raised illegal construction over and above illegally constructed area of the first floor and have converted into a Verandah in connivance with the residents of the ground and first floor.
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 6/12 2.13. That, the defendant no.1 to 4 do not maintain the building and refused to pay the maintenance and cleaning charges, which is being carried out by the Plaintiff.
2.14. That, the defendant no.1 to 4 do not have any right to raise unauthorized construction which they have carried out against the bye-laws despite objections of the plaintiff. 2.15. That, the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Court.
2.16. That, the cause of action for the present suit arose for the first time as and when the defendants had raised unauthorized construction in the suit property. Lastly, it arose in the month of November 2022, when the defendants had carried out massive additions and alterations against the original plan of the property under their respective portions, which is illegal and dangerous for the entire building. It is further arose on 09.12.2022, when the plaintiff issued a legal notice upon the defendants for demolishing the construction removing the illegal raised by them, but till date they have not replied to the said legal notice. The cause of action continue to accrue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
2.17. That, the suit property is situated in West Delhi. The cause of action arose at West Delhi. The parties to the dispute are permanent resident of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and hence, this Hon'ble Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 7/12 2.18. That, the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs.130/- for the relief of mandatory injunction and Rs.130/- for the relief of permanent injunction and the proper court fees has been paid by the Plaintiff. 2.19. It is thus prayed on behalf of the plaintiff that:
i. a decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants to direct the defendants, their agents, successors, executors, assignees etc. to demolish and remove the unauthorized, illegal encroachment and construction over the property bearing no. M-397, Guru New Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087, as shown red in the site plan.
ii. a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, their agents, successors, executors, assignees etc. to restrain the Defendants not to make addition, alteration, changes and not to put hindrance in the common passage, leading to the staircase in the suit property no. M-397, bearing Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, Guru New Delhi-110087.
3. CASE OF DEFENDANTS AS SET UP IN WRITTEN STATEMENT 3.1. Vide order dated 27.08.2024, the right of defendant no. 1 and 3 to file their written statement was struck off and further due to non appearance the defendant no. 1 and 3 were proceeded Ex-parte. Further, on the same date the defendant no. 2 and 4 had appeared CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 8/12 and had recorded their separate statements stated that they do not wish to participate in the present trial.
4. PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE 4.1. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has relied upon following documents:-
1. Ex PW-1/1 is the site plan.
2. Ex PW-1/2 (OSR) is copy of registered Sale deed.
3. Ex. PW1/3 (colly) are photographs (13 photographs).
4. Ex. PW1/4 is the copy of the legal notice.
5. Original postal receipts which are Ex. PW1/5 (colly.) (5 in number)
6. Ex. PW1/5 (colly) (5 in numbers) are Tracking reports.
4.2. This witness was not cross-examined as the defendant no. 1 and 3 were proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 27.08.2024 and defendant no. 2 and 4 have already given their statement recorded in order dated 27.08.2024 that they do not wish to participate in the present trial.
4.3. After the examination of plaintiff witnesses, PE was closed on 27.01.2026.
5. DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 5.1. No evidence was led on behalf of the either of the defendants.
6. DECISION AND THE REASONS FOR DECISION 6.1. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. I have perused the record.
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 9/12 6.2. In this case, plaintiff has sought a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has primarily relied upon documents i.e Ex PW-1/1 which is the site plan, Ex PW-1/2 (OSR) which is copy of registered Sale deed, Ex. PW1/3 (colly) which are photographs (13 photographs), Ex. PW1/4 which is the copy of the legal notice, Original postal receipts which are Ex. PW1/5 (colly.) (5 in number) and Ex. PW1/5 (colly) (5 in numbers) are Tracking reports. 6.3. The principle that a plaintiff must stand on his own legs is a well established doctrine in civil litigation within the Indian judiciary system. This principle asserts that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must substantiate their claims with credible evidence, independent of defendant's weaknesses. This principle has been reiterated in the case of Ganpat Lal Vs. Nand Lal Haswani AIR 1998 MP 2009 and Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain 2009 (109) PRJ Delhi 126(DB).
6.4. The legal principle of "preponderance of probability" is accepted standard of proof in civil proceedings. While the criminal cases demand proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," civil disputes rely on the preponderance of probability to determine the outcome. In this context, a fact is considered proven when the evidence suggests that the occurrence of the fact is more likely than not. This standard is pivotal in determining the burden of proof in civil cases, where the claimant is expected to present evidence which makes their claim more probable than the opposing side. The preponderance of the probability refers to the greater likelihood of one event or fact CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 10/12 over another. It is not about certainty or eliminating all doubts but rather about weighing evidence to see which side presents a more probable scenario. This standard contrasts sharply with the criminal law standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," where the prosecution must prove the defendants guilt to a much higher level of certainty. In civil cases, by contrast, the balance of probabilities leans toward the more convincing narrative. In Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane 1975 AIR 1534, the Supreme Court held that the normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact is said to be established if it is proved by preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court further held that under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act (now Section 2(1) (j) of BSA, 2023), a fact is said to be proved when, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
6.5. In this case, in the opinion of this court, the case of the plaintiff is not standing on its own legs. In this case, in order to prove his case, the plaintiff alongwith a site plan Ex. PW1/1 has filed some photographs Ex. PW1/3 (colly.). Vide these documents, the plaintiff wants to prove the illegal constructions done by the respective defendants, however, in the opinion of these court these documents are not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff. Firstly, because of the reason that there is no original building plan filed before this court so as to show the deviation therefrom by the alleged illegal constructions. The basis of the site plan drafted by CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 11/12 some draftsman, this court cannot come to the conclusion that any illegal construction has been done. Further, from the perusal of the photographs Ex. PW1/3 (colly.) also, this court has not been able to form any opinion regarding the alleged illegal construction. 6.6. Further, there is no report of MCD or any other government department regarding the alleged illegal construction. Not even, any complaint made to any of the government authorities regarding the alleged illegal construction has been filed on record. The other documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff are Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) which is the registered sale deed, Ex. PW1/4 which is copy of legal notice, Ex. PW1/5 which is the original postal receipt and Ex. PW1/6 which is the tracking report, however, these documents cannot prove the case of the plaintiff.
6.7. Though, the defendants in the present case have not appeared to defend, however, the plaintiff's case is not standing on its own legs on the scale of balance of probabilities.
6.8. In view of the above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
6.9. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by DEV
SAROHA
DEV Date:
Announced in the open Court SAROHA 2026.03.11
15:47:22
on 11.03.2026 +0530
(Dev Saroha)
Civil Judge-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ 928/23 (Naresh Khanna Vs. Madan Lal Solanki & others) Page no. 12/12