Delhi District Court
Poonam Verms vs M/S Gps Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 16 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT, JSCC-CUM-
ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE(WEST): DELHI
SUIT NO. 187/13
Poonam Verms vs M/s GPS Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
ORDER
16.03.2016
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the injunction application filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the applications are that the plaintiffs are owners of shop bearing no. SF-22-05, West Gate Mall, Shivaji Place, Dist. Central, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for specific performance against the defendants which was settled between the parties and as per the settlement, the defendant no. 2 agreed to demarcate the area of the shop of the plaintiff at the time of vacating the shop and after the demarcation to raise a wall to complete the demarcation. There is a passage in front of the shop of the plaintiffs ad-measuring 1799 Sq. Feet on which the defendants have started to raise illegal construction and block the passage and they are trying to create a shop out of the passage. Despite complaint, the defendants have not demolished the said wall.
Suit No. 187/13 Page no. 1/23. The defendant nos. 1 & 2 in their written statement have stated that a prior suit is pending in the Rohini Courts between the same parties and on the same cause of action and the plaintiffs in the prior suit are the defendant no. 12. Further stated that they are not responsible in any manner for raising any wall for causing obstruction and on the contrary the plaintiffs have obstructed the passage by raising a wall.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. A perusal of the settlement between the parties as placed on record by the plaintiffs shows that only the demarcation was to be conducted by the defendant no. 1 and the wall, if any, was to be raised by the plaintiff himself. Moreover, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have also clearly denied to have raised any illegal wall and they have alleged that the wall has been erected by the plaintiffs. At this stage, it is not feasible to find out from the material available on record that the plaintiffs and the defendants as to who has constructed the wall and the issue can be decided after the trial and production of evidence by both the parties. Therefore, no prima-facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is dismissed. Nothing expressed herein above, shall tantamount to my expressions of opinion on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open Court today the 16th March, 2016 (DEEPAK SHERAWAT) JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum Guardian Judge (West),Delhi 16.03.2016 Suit No. 187/13 Page no. 2/2