Delhi District Court
Sh. Kewal Kumar vs Sh. Puneet Advani on 13 February, 2026
CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030017022017
CS SCJ No. 772/17
CNR No. DLWT03-001702-2017
1. Sh. Kewal Kumar
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
2. Smt. Neeta
W/o Sh. Kewal Kumar
Both,
R/o FC-117, Ground Floor,
Tagore Garden,
New Delhi-110027
...PLAINTIFFS
Versus
1. Sh. Puneet Advani
S/o Sh. Ramesh Advani
R/o FC-117, Ground Floor,
Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Ramesh Advani
R/o FC-117, Ground Floor,
Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
Digitally
3. South Delhi Municipal Corporation signed by
Through its Deputy Commissioner, VIVEK
VIVEK
KUMAR
Office of MCD, Rajouri Garden, KUMAR AGARWAL
West District, Delhi. AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13
16:33:24
+0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026
Page no. 1 of 23
CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI
4. SHO (Deleted)
PS Rajouri Garden,
Delhi
..DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent & mandatory injunction. The relief of permanent injunction has been sought to restrain the defendant no. 1 to 2, their agents/ representatives/ assignees from raising any illegal and unauthorized construction over the suit property i.e. Third Floor of the property bearing no. FC-117, Second Floor, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. Further plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant no. 3 and 4 to demolish the unauthorized construction being raised over the suit property i.e. Third Floor of the property bearing no. FC-117, Second Floor, Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
2. As per plaint, the case of plaintiff in brief is that the Defendant No.3 is the govt. departments and the Defendant No.4 is under the boundened duties to maintain the law and order of the city and as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court also (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Digitally signed Page no. 2 of 23 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2026.02.13
16:33:33 +0530
CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI
bound to see that nobody should carry out any unauthorized illegal constructions in the jurisdiction of that particular police station and if any such eventuality/incident/construction take place in that case, in charge of the police station (SHO) shall be held responsible. That the Plaintiffs came into a verbal agreement with owner of the property bearing No. FC-17, Ground Floor, Tagore Garden, Delhi and plaintiffs on 27.01.2017 paid on Rs.4,00,000/- (by cheque which is mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.04.2017) as bayana amount for the mentioned property and the previous owner of the said property handover the peaceful physical possession of the said property to the Plaintiff on the same day. That the Defendant No.2 is the owner of the 2 nd Floor of the property bearing No. FC-117. Tagore Garden, Delhi and the Defendant No.1 is the son of the Defendant No.2. That during the renovating (like whitewash, water and electricity fittings etc.) in the mentioned floor, the Plaintiffs came to know that the Defendant No.1 and 2 R/o FC-117. Second Floor, Tagore Garden, Delhi are illegally doing the work of the unauthorized / dangerous work of construction at the third floor of the property bearing No. FC-117, Second Floor, Tagore Garden, (hereinafter called the suit property). That the Plaintiffs purchased the property bearing No. FC-117, Second floor, Tagore Garden, Delhi vide sale deed dated 17.04.2017 duly executed by its previous owner Sh. Jagdeep Singh. That the property bearing No. FC-117, Second Floor, Tagore Garden, Delhi is sanctioned only VIVEK KUMAR (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 3 of 23 Date: 2026.02.13 16:34:30 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI upto 2nd floor and there is not even any single pillar in the whole property.
2.1. It is further stated that with passage of time, the market of the properties have gone up and down and various people in the collusion of corrupt officials of the Defendant No.3 have started raising illegal construction work in the properties, against the Municipal Bye-Laws, without sanctioning plans, without adhering to the safety of life and properties of the vicinity, much to the detriment of the plaintiffs and of the general public at large. That the Defendant No.1 to 2 with the work collusion of the official of the Defendant No. 3 are going to do the illegal and unauthorized /dangerous construction work without the prior any approval or sanctioned from the Defendant No.3 without adhering to the safety of the neighbors of the suit property. That the Defendant No.1 to 2 have no right, authority to taking law in their hands, they raised illegal and unauthorized construction work may be resulted in damage to the properties and lives of the neighbors and the Plaintiffs. That in this regard a complaint was made by the Plaintiffs on 28.03.2017 vide DD No.4P to the Defendant No.3 which was duly received by him, but no action has been taken till date. That the Plaintiffs had also lodged a complaint dated 15.03.2017 vide DD No.4P before Defendant No.4 regarding the illegal construction raised by the Defendant No.1 to 2, but till date the police officials did not take any action against them. That in case Defendant No.1 the to 2 continuous raised the illegal and unauthorized /dangerous VIVEK (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) AGARWAL Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 4 of 23 Date: 2026.02.13 16:34:38 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI construction work in the suit property while building and buildings of the neighbours likely to be collapsed any time leading to loss of the lives and property of the public at large including the Plaintiffs.
2.2. It is further stated that the Plaintiffs tried to explain may times reason of this kind of happening with the Defendant No.1 to 2 and requested them not to persuade them to carry out the said illegal and unauthorized/dangerous construction work at the suit property raised by the Defendant No.1 to 2, they become furious and to take revenge from the Plaintiffs and to fulfill their undue and illegal demands, they filed a false/cryptic /motivated complaint against the Plaintiff No.1 and other civilized persons, and filed a false and motivated complaint against Plaintiff No.1 and other at P.S. Rajouri Garden, U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the Hon'ble concerned Court and same is fixed for 04.07.2017 for further proceedings. That the defendants No.1 to 2 are adopting the violent methods to create a terror in the mind of the plaintiffs. The abovesaid acts violate the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff to enjoy the peaceful right and the same is absolute and well guarded by the law of land and cannot be infringed by defendant No.1 to 2 by resorting to illegal means and acts. That there is no efficacious and speedy remedy available to the Plaintiff except to file the present suit. That the cause of action for filing the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants firstly arose when the plaintiff on (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) Digitally (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) signed by VIVEK Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 5 of 23 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 16:34:46 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI 15.03.2017 and 28.03.2017 when the plaintiffs made a complaint to the defendant No.3 and 4. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing one.
Version of Defendants:-
3. As per the joint WS of Defendants, preliminary objections have been taken that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as there is expressly no locus standi of the plaintiffs to file this present suit. That the suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law as inter alia no cause of action has arisen favour of the plaintiffs or against the answering defendants. That the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff hasn't come before the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has averred wrong and misleading facts in the plaint and has also concealed important and vital facts from the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court and therefore also suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs not complied with the mandatory procedure of Section 80 CPC. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the relief claimed is discretionary relief and based upon the equity and the person who had himself guilty of inequitable conduct is not entitled for such relief as present suit has been filed with the malafide intention to extort money from the Defendant No.1 & 2, for which the Complaint is already pending before the local police for the appropriated police action, and further with the malafide intention to bring the property under litigation. That the VIVEK (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) KUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 AGARWAL Digitally signed by Page no. 6 of 23 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.13 16:34:55 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI present plaint is also not maintainable as the plaintiffs himself had encroached upon the public road (Service Road) and even placed the tiles over the water motor of the Defendant No. 1 & 2 and also the motor of the owner of first floor and further the plaintiff deliberately in order to harass and protract the litigation opened the front door about double of earlier front door of ground floor and that too both the part of the doors are opening outside blocking ingress and egress of the Defendant No 1 and 2 as well as of the resident of the first Floor obstructing their way to go their dwelling house and even further creating the nuisance at the front road by parking his vehicles in haphazard manner and showing reluctance to let the residents of first floor and Defendant No. 1 & 2 to park their vehicles at the space/place where they were used to park their vehicles right from the respective day they have purchased the property. That the present suit is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of plaintiffs have not approached at the first opportunity to the court when the alleged construction of renovation commenced or on the first opportunity after the plaintiffs have seen that the defendants No.1 and 2 would allegedly infringed any of their alleged right.
3.1. It is further stated that the renovation work of waterproofing of roofs, tiling etc was started at the third week of February and finished by the third week of May 2017 and the plaintiffs let the renovation work completed and kept trying to extort the money from the defendant No 1 and 2 by threatening Digitally (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) VIVEK VIVEKKUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 KUMARAGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
Page no. 7 of 23 2026.02.13
16:35:04
+0530
CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI
them to make a false complaint as such not entitled for the grant of injunction even if all the contents of the suit is taken on the face of it, though not admitted, as the renovation work was completed even before the filing of the suit and the defendants No 1 and 2 had already spend a lot of money and on the date of filing of the suit no renovation work much less to the alleged construction work was going on the date of filing of the suit. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs have not valued the suit property as as per the suit valuation act as amended for the state of Delhi and as such not affixed the appropriate court fees, thus liable to be dismissed on the ground of deficiency of court fees and for undervaluing the suit beside other ground. That the present suit is not maintainable as the property in question is protected as per the provision of National capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second (Amendment) Act 2014.
3.2. In reply on merits, the relevant facts as stated are that the plaintiff no.1 during the course of renovation had trespass in the night hours along with four five local bully type person entered into the house of Defendant No. 1 & 2 and not only tried to extort the money of Rs. 25 Lakhs giving threat to make false and frivolous complainant before MCD in order to make wrongful loss to the property of defendant but also man handled the defendant no.1 and using the filthy language on the name of his mother and sister and that too in front of his parents (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) VIVEK Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
Page no. 8 of 23 2026.02.13
16:35:13
+0530
CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI
and wife for which the 100 number call was made but the local police, who are also hand in gloves with the Plaintiff no.1 and his associates, the reason best known no.1 to them instead of registering the case FIR under section 384, 452, 341, 323, 506/34 IPC simply in order to dilute the matter made a Kalandara against both the party without appreciating the fact that the plaintiff no.1 and his associates was the aggressor and the defendant no.1 is the as such not performed its aggrieved party, which is the clear cut statutory duties, violation of the judgment passed by Apex Court of India. It is stated that the old structure does not require any sanction plan and in the locality many such structure are built up. 3.3. However it is submitted that the renovation at the property in question was made within the parameter of the MCD and adhering all the safety measures evident from the fact that no and it is unfortunate incident had occurred during the whole period of the renovation and no one had made any complaint whatsoever however allegation made against the defendant No 3 are false and baseless however they would be better replied by the concern defendant. It is submitted that no alleged illegal /unauthorized /dangerous construction had been carried out by the Defendant No. 1 & 2. It is submitted that mere perusal of the complainant dated 15.03.2017 and 28.03.2017 and this was made even when the plaintiffs are not the owner of the property it would make abundantly clear that the plaintiffs through the plaintiff no.2 made a after though attempt to create the false evidence in order to dilute the criminal offence committed till Digitally (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) VIVEK KUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 KUMARAGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 Page no. 9 of 23 16:35:22 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI 14.03.2017 by the plaintiff no.1 alongwith his associates. It is submitted that as per the rules the construction up to the 15 meter of building height is allowed and total height of building in much less than 15 meter. That all the other averments of the plaint are reiterated and allegations are denied. It is pertinent to mentioned that one additional WS was also filed on behalf of defendant no. 1, however, same was not taken on record and declined vod. 22.11.2025.
WS of Defendant no. 3 / MCD
4. The WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 question is raised on the maintainability of the suit in view of non- compliance of Sec 477/478 of DMC Act. It is stated that the suit property was inspected by the concerned official on 16.03.2018 and that entire property consisting of ground floor to third floor was booked vide file dt. 16.03.2018 and showcause notice was issued u/s 433/434 of DMC Act. In rely in merits, certain paragraphs are stated to be matter of record, however, allegations raised against the MCD are denied.
REPLICATIONS:-
5. In the separate two replications filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS of the defendants, all the averments of plaint are reiterated and allegations of WS are denied. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.02.13 16:35:31 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Page no. 10 of 23 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI ISSUES:-
6. Thereafter, pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 04.09.2018 Issue no.1:- Whether the plaintiff has no locus- standi to file the present suit ? OPD-1 & 2. Issue no.2:- Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has mislead the court and also concealed the material facts? OPD1 & 2.
Issue no.3:- Whether the suit is barred by Section 477/478 of DMC Act for want of statutory notice? OPD3.
Issue no.4:- Whether the suit is without cause of action and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD-3.
Issue no.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP. Issue no.6:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP. Issue no.7:- Relief.
Evidence of Plaintiff :-
7. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1 and relied on the following documents:- VIVEK KUMAR (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Digitally signed by Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.13 Page no. 11 of 23 16:35:41 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI Sr. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Documents No.
1. Ex.PW1/1(OSR) The General Power of Attorney dt.
19.10.2019.
2 Mark A Photocopy of sale deed dt. 17.04.2017.
3. Mark B Photocopy of police complaint dt. 15.03.2017
4. Mark C Photocopy of complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of MCD, Rajori Garden dt. 28.03.2017
5. Mark D Photocopy of Kalendra u/S 107/111 Cr.P.C.
6. Ex. PW1/2 Copy of site plan.
7. Ex. PW1/3(colly) Copy of photographs(9). 8 Ex. PW1/4 Copy of Sanction Plan.
7.1. Thereafter witness has been cross-examined on behalf of defendants accordingly and then PE has been closed vod. 25.04.2023.
Evidence of Defendant :-
8. In defendant evidence, the defendant no. 1 and 2 examined defendant no. 1 as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and relied on the following documents:- Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 16:35:49 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Page no. 12 of 23 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI Sr. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Documents No.
1. Ex.DW1/1(OSR) Copy of Sale deed dt. 15.06.2005. 2 Ex.RW1/2(colly) Copy of the construction bills dated year (OSR) 2005.
3. Ex.RW1/3 The Photographs of the renovation work.
4. Ex.RW1/4 The photographs depicting the obstruction caused by plaintiff's vehicle, impeding the entrance and access.
5 Mark PW1/DA Copy of show-cause notice. 6 Ex.RW1/5A Copy of the reply to the show-cause notice.
7. Ex. RW1/6 The photographs of the encroachment of the public service road.
8 Ex. RW1/7 The colour photographs, which clearly demonstrate the date and the altercation between the parties and highlight the ongoing construction activities in the neighboring plot. 9 Ex. RW1/8(OSR) The copy of the letter issued by Darshan & Associates dt. 28.08.2019.
10 Ex. RW1/9(OSR) The copy of the structural stability certificate / Fitness Certificate issued by Er.
G.S. Soneja, dt. 06.06.2023.
11 Ex.RW1/9A The colour photogrpahs of the third floor and (colly) terrace of the suit property.
8.1. Thereafter witness has been cross-examined on behalf of plaintiffs and thereafter DE has been closed by separate VIVEK KUMAR (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 13 of 23 Date: 2026.02.13 16:35:57 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI statement of defendant no. 1 vide dt. 22.11.2025. No evidence was led on behalf of defendant no. 3 / MCD.
FINDINGS:-
9. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties have been heard at length and written arguments filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 and file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issues wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 & 4 :-
10. Both the issues being interconnected are taken together. The onus to prove these issues were upon the defendant no. 1 and 2. It has been argued by counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership in the suit property. Again, plaintiffs have also failed to prove, if they are in possession of the suit property and therefore, plaintiffs have failed to prove any locus standi to file the present suit.
10.1. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that as reflected from the status report filed by the MCD / defendant no. 3, the property of defendant no. 1 and 2 was duly booked for illegal construction. Again the defendants have not denied the possession of the plaintiff in the (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) KUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 AGARWAL Digitally signed by Page no. 14 of 23 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.13 16:36:07 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI suit property and accordingly there is no question on locus of the plaintiffs to file the present suit.
10.2. Heard. It is observed that present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. It is further observed that law is very well settled that a suit for injunction is maintainable only when there is some right of the plaintiff which has been violated by the defendants. Again, as provided u/S 38 as well as u/S 39 of SRA, the relief of perpetual injunction as well as mandatory injunction can only be granted when there is an obligation on the part of the defendant. It is further observed that mere illegal construction or encroachment does not give any right to a neighbour and in this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Rajender Motwani & Ors. Vs. MCD 2017 SCC Online Del 11050, wherein it was observed as follows:-
"...that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor. 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..."
10.3. Accordingly, it is very clear that to seek the relief of injunction qua illegal construction, the plaintiffs are required to plead and then to prove that what right the plaintiff had in the suit Digitally signed by (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) KUMAR AGARWAL Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 16:36:15 +0530 Page no. 15 of 23 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI property and that how and in what manner, it was affected by the alleged illegal construction, raised by the defendants. 10.4. Now, coming to the facts of present suit, it is observed that as per the plaint, the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property on the basis of sale deed 17.04.2017, however, the plaintiffs failed to prove the said sale deed and rather said document was not even admitted in evidence as not being exhibited for want of original. Accordingly, at the very first, the plaintiffs failed to prove their right in the suit property.
Certainly , it was the ownership of the plaintiffs in the ground floor of the suit property, as pleaded in the plaint, which could have given any basis to claim the relief of injunction and therefore, in the absence of the proof of ownership of the plaintiffs in the suit property, they have failed to prove any locus in their favor to seek the relief of injunction. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs failed to produce the original sale deed despite his statement in the cross-examination that original sale deed was in his possession. On the same lines, it is also pertinent to observe that plaintiff / PW-1 also admitted in his cross- examination that he was not residing in the suit property and that one care taker was there on his behalf. Accordingly, again the plaintiffs have failed to show their locus to seek the relief of injunction.
10.5. Going one step further, it is observed that qua the right of the plaintiff being affected by way of illegal construction raised by the defendants, it has been stated in para no. 10 and 14 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) KUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 AGARWAL Page no. 16 of 23 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.13 16:36:25 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI of the plaint that said construction work may result in the damage to the proeprties and lives of neighbour and of the plainitff and that said construction was likely to collapsed any time. In this regard, it is observed that except the vague averments in this regard pleaded with the words 'may' and 'likely', the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence so as to support their apprehension of damage to their property by the construction raised by the defendants. Neither the plaintiffs examined any expert regarding the structural safety of the suit property after the construction raised by the defendants, nor the defendants examined any other person from the locality, who had apprehension about the collapse of the property in question so as to cause any damage to the property of any neighbor. Even, in his cross-examination, the plaintiffs admitted that before execution of sale deed dt. 17.04.2017 in his favour, the construction at the third floor of the property in question was going on and that at that time he found the property in good condition. Accordingly, it appears that the plaintiffs filed the present suit only on the basis of their whims and fancies and without any substantial cause of action. 10.6. It is further observed that even though, the construction of the defendant was found to be illegal by the MCD, it cannot be presumed that the said construction was likely to cause damage to the property of the plaintiffs. The construction in violation of building bye-laws, can be there for various reasons and there is no absolute presumption that said construction would have been dangerous and likely to collapse. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) AGARWAL Date:
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 2026.02.13 16:37:29 +0530 Page no. 17 of 23 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI 10.7. Accordingly, it is concluded that plaintiffs have failed to prove any cause of action in their favor to seek relief of injunction and have also failed to prove any locus in their favor.
Therefore, issue no. 1 and 4 are hereby decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
11. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no. 1 and 2 only. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 that as reflected from the record, the MCD had filed the status report with respect to the booking of the illegal construction at the ground floor of the property in question, which allegedly belonged to the plainitffs only and therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs had not come to the court with clean hands as there own construction was illegal. It is further submitted that as admitted by the plaintiff no. 1 / PW1 in his cross-examination, he was well aware about the construction at the third floor of the property in question, before the purchase of the ground floor in the said property by him and that plaintiffs have failed to explain, why they had purchased the said property despite being alreay aware of alleged illegal construction. That the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/S 41(i) of SRA and in this regard reliance is also placed on the judgements of Virender Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Ors(2007) 3 SCC 617. 11.1. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that plaintiffs had not concealed any material facts, as Digitally signed by (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) VIVEK KUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 KUMARAGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 Page no. 18 of 23 16:37:42 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI required for adjudication of the present suit. That the property of the plaintiffs at the ground floor was booked after filing of the suit and not before that and accordingly, there was no concealment on the part of the plaintiffs.
11.2. Heard. It is observed that as rightly argued by counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2, the plaintiff / PW-1 has duly admitted in his cross-examination that the construction at the third floor in the property in question was being raised, when he had inspected the suit property before executing the sale deed dt. 17.04.2017. Accordingly, it is very clear that the plaintiffs were well aware about the said alleged illegal construction before purchase of the ground floor by them, however, despite that plaintiffs proceeded to purchase the ground floor at the said property. Nothing has been explained that what were the compelling circumstances in which the plaintiffs purchased the said property despite being aware of such illegal construction at the third floor. It is also pertinent to mention that plaintiff / PW-1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that in its sale deed, there is a mention of four floors in the property in question which implies that the third floor, which has been challenged by way of present suit, was already there at the time of purchase of the ground floor in the suit property by the plaintiffs. 11.3. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is to be concluded that plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the equitable relief Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) AGARWAL 2026.02.13 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 16:37:51 +0530 Page no. 19 of 23 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI of injunction as provided u/S 41(i) of SRA. In this regard, the reference is also made to the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ramjas Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ Civil Appeal No. 6662 of 2004], wherein, it was held as follows:
"14. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. In Dalglish v. Jarvie 2 Mac. & G. 231, 238, Lord Langdale and Rolfe B. observed: "It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward. In Castelli v. Cook (1849) 7 Hare, 89, 94 Wigram V.C. stated the rule in the following words: A plaintiff applying ex parte comes under a contract with the Court that he will state the whole case fully and fairly to the Court. If he fails to do that, and the Court finds, when other party applies to dissolve the injunction, that any material fact has been Digitally (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) VIVEK VIVEKKUMAR Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 KUMARAGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 Page no. 20 of 23 16:38:01 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI suppressed or not property brought forward, the plaintiff is told the Court will not decide on the merits, and that, as he has broken faith with the Court, the injunction must go."
[Emphasis Supplied] 11.4. Accordingly, in the facts of the present case, it is concluded as plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands, they are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction and Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
12. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 3 and it has been submitted by counsel for defendant no. 3 that suit was apparently barred in view of the absence of the mandatory notice as provided u/S 477/478 of DMC Act.
12.1. It is observed that as provided u/S 478(3) of DMC Act, the bar provided u/S 478(1) of DMC Act is not applicable, where the only relief of injunction has been sought and where the object of the suit would be defeated by giving of notice or by postponement of the suit. Now, as discussed above, the alleged illegal construction by the defendant no. 1 and 2 was being raised much before the purchase of property by the plaintiffs in April, 2017. The present suit was filed in June, 2017 and therefore, it was not the case that by giving notice, the objective of the suit would have been frustrated as counsel for plaintiff has failed to (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) Digitally (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) signed by Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 21 of 23 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.13 16:38:10 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI provide any jusitfication in this regard and accordingly suit is apparently bad for non-compliance of Section 478(1) of DMC Act and therefore, the suit without the said compliance was not maintainable. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5 :-
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As discussed above, the plaintiffs have failed to prove any locus and cause of action in their favour to seek the relief of injunction. The plaintiffs have completed failed to prove what right of plaintiffs was affected by way of illegal construction raised by the defendants no. 1 & 2. Moreover, as discussed above, the plaintiffs are also not entitled to relief of injunction in view of Sec 41(i) of SRA. Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 6:-
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As discussed above, the plaintiffs are not entitle to equitable relief of injunction. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that relief of mandatory injunction has been sought against defendant no. 3 / MCD, however, the MCD has no contractual or statutory liability towards the plaintiffs for demolition of illegal construction. Undoubtedly, it is the statutory duty of the MCD to take action against the unauthorised / illegal construction, VIVEK (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR Page no. 22 of 23 AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.13 16:38:17 +0530 CS SCJ 772/17 SH. KEWAL KUMAR Vs. SH. PUNEET ADVANI whether raised by the plaintiffs or defendants, however, the plaintiffs have no right to seek any injunction against the MCD for enforcement of their duty. The relief of mandatory injunction, as provided u/S 39 of SRA can be provided by the civil court, only when there is a right in favour of plaintiff and the duty on the part of the defendant, unlike in the case of writ of Mandamus. Accordingly, Issue no. 6 is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 7:- RELIEF
15. In view of above findings of issue no. 1 to 6, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date: 2026.02.13
AGARWAL 16:38:28 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/13.02.2026
(Announced in open court
On 13.02.2026).
Note: This order contains 23 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.13 AGARWAL 16:38:35 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/13.02.2026 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.02.2026 Page no. 23 of 23