Delhi District Court
Mohd. Shokin Malik vs Javed on 5 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ-160/20
Mohd. Shokin Malik
S/o late Sh. Kalwa Malik
R/o N-151A, Abul Fazal Enclave-1,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi-110025. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Shri Javed S/o Not Known R/o N-142 & 143, Abul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2. Shri Jalil S/o Not Known R/o N-142 & 143, Abul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
3. The Deputy Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024.
4. The SHO Police Station Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi-110025. ....Defendants Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA Date:
2025.12.09 Pg. 1 of 17
15:32:09 +0530
Date of Institution : 18.02.2020
Date of Reserving judgment : 27.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2025
Judgment:
1 The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and recovery of damages for sum of Rs.4 lacs. Plaintiff's case 2 The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen and residing at N-151A, Abul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025. Defendants no.1 & 2 have purchased the property bearing No. N-142 & 143, Abul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 which is adjacent to the property of the plaintiff. Defendant no.3 is the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and defendant no.4 is the SHO of PS Shaheen Bagh.
3 It is stated that in February 2019, defendants no.1 & 2 started demolition activity of old structure of property bearing No. N-142 & 143, Abul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 and after demolition, started illegal and unauthorized construction on the said property. It is further stated that property has been constructed upto seventh floor without any authorization or sanction plan in collusion with other defendants. It is further stated that defendants no.1& 2 have also constructed 2.50 ft. jetty (chajja) on the suit property covering the entire lane and blocking the air and sunlight to the property of the plaintiff. It is further stated that that plaintiff and other residents of the locality are facing inconvenience due to the unauthorized construction done by defendants no.1 & 2. It is further stated that defendants no.1 & 2 are raising construction over the suit property illegally without any sanction Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA Date: 2025.12.09 15:32:17 +0530 Pg. 2 of 17 plan and the same is in gross violation of the building bye-laws. Further, for the construction of the suit property, the whole lane has been occupied by defendants no.1 & 2 by illegally storing construction material on the same. It is further stated that the structure of the building is not proper and is likely to weaken and destroy the property of the plaintiff and the other residents. It is further stated that defendants no.3 & 4 in collusion with the private defendants have allowed defendants no.1 & 2 to raise unauthorized construction without any sanction plan. It is further stated that due to illegal construction, the same has resulted in damages to the property of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.4 lacs and when the plaintiff requested the defendants no.1 & 2 to repair the damage caused to his property, the same was not adhered to by defendants no.1 & 2 and they threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences in case plaintiff pursues the matter.
4 The plaintiff made several complaints to the various officers of defendants no.3 & 4, however, no action was taken and illegal construction is still being carried out. Based upon the abovesaid facts, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with the following prayers :
4.1 Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants no.1 & 2, their agents, assigns, employees, representatives, successors from raising illegal, unlawful and unauthorized construction in the suit premises i.e. No.142 & 143, Abdul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 specifically shown as red in site plan as well as photographs. 4.2 Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 & 2 thereby directing the defendant no.3 to demolish the existing illegal and unauthorized construction already carried out by defendants no.1 & 2 in the suit premises i.e. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.12.09 CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed 15:32:24 +0530 Pg. 3 of 17 No.142 & 143, Abdul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 specifically shown as red in site plan as well as photographs.
4.3 Pass a decree of damages of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 & 2.
5 The summons of the suit were issued to defendants and defendants no.1 & 3 appeared and filed their Written Statements. Written Statement of defendant No.1 :
6 As per the Written Statement, defendant No.1 has stated that the present suit is gross abuse and misuse of process of law and he has been wrongly dragged in the present litigation. It is further stated that there is no cause of action arising out of defendant no.1. It is further stated that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and defendant no.1 has nothing to do with the construction of the property as mentioned by plaintiff. The factual averments made by plaintiff have been denied and it has been stated that he has no concerned with the suit property and he is unnecessarily dragged into the case.
7 The defendant no.2 despite service did not file his Written Statement and as such, opportunity to file Written Statement by defendant no.2 was closed vide order dated 24.08.2022.
Written Statement of defendant No.3 :
8 The defendant no.3 vide its Written Statement had taken the preliminary objection that the suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 477 & 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the DMC Act). However, it is stated that Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA Date: 2025.12.09 15:32:31 +0530 Pg. 4 of 17 no cause of action has been shown against defendant no.3 and as such, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. 9 It is further stated that the defendant no.3 had identified the property no.142/143 and as per record, demolition proceedings under Section 343/344 of the DMC Act were already initiated. Further, the work stoppage letters under Section 344(7) of the DMC Act dated 12.04.2019, 16.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 were sent to defendant no.4 with a request to stop the construction.
Issues:
10 Vide order dated 15.05.2023, based upon pleadings of parties the following issues were framed :
10.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 10.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 10.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages to the tune of Rs.4 lacs, as prayed for? OPP 10.4 Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence:
11 In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1, Sh. Raman Lal Sharma as PW.2 and ASI Kavindra as PW3. 12 PW1/plaintiff tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.PW1/1 and exhibited the following documents :
SL. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
NO.
1 Original site plan of the suit property. Ex.PW1/A
Digitally signed
CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
Pg. 5 of 17
BHATIA Date: 2025.12.09
15:32:40 +0530
2 Photographs of the suit property. Ex.PW1/B
(colly)
3 Copies of complaints dated 12.06.2019, Ex.PW1/C
31.07.2019 made to Dy. Commissioner, (colly)
SDMC, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
4 Copies of complaints dated 26.09.2019, Ex.PW1/D
11.06.2019 made to Commissioner, (colly)
SDMC, Civic Centre, New Delhi.
5 Copies of complaints dated 28.05.2019, Ex.PW1/E
11.06.2019, 17.07.2019 and 30.09.2019 (colly)
made to SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh New
Delhi.
6 Copies of complaints dated 28.05.2019, Ex.PW1/F
11.06.2019, 17.07.2019 and 30.09.2019 (colly)
made to ACP, New Friends Colony, New
Delhi.
7 Copy of complaint dated 28.05.2019 made Ex.PW1/G
to DCP, PS Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
8 Copies of complaints dated 11.06.2019, Ex.PW1/H
17.07.2019, 14.08.2019, 30.08.2019, (colly)
19.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 made to DCP,
South East, New Delhi.
9 Copies of complaints dated 03.06.2019, Ex.PW1/I
12.06.219, 16.07.2019, 30.07.2019 and (colly)
20.09.2019 made to Commissioner of
Police Headquarter, New Delhi.
10 Copy of complaint dated 05.12.2019 Ex.PW1/J
addressed to Prime Minister of India.
11 Copy of complaint dated 04.12.2019 Ex.PW1/K
addressed to Chief Minister of Delhi.
12 Copies of complaints dated 03.06.2019, Ex.PW1/L
12.06.219, 31.07.2019, 16.08.2019 and (colly)
17.09.2019 made to Lt. Governor, Raj
Niwas, Delhi.
13 Copies of complaint dated 12.06.2019 and Ex.PW1/M
03.12.2019 addressed to the President of (colly) India 14 Copies of complaints dated 12.06.2019, Ex.PW1/N 14.06.219, 07.10.2019, 18.10.2019 and (colly)
05.12.2019 made to Home Minister, Government of India.
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA
BHATIA Date: 2025.12.09 Pg. 6 of 17
15:32:48 +0530
15 Copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Ex.PW1/O
Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter & (colly)
Receipt, all dated 27.01.2011.
16 Copy of electricity bill dated 23.12.2019. Ex.PW1/P 17 Copy of election identity card. Ex.PW1/Q 18 Copy of Certificate under Section 65B of Ex.PW1/R Indian Evidence Act.
13 In his cross-examination by Sh. Mohd. Asif, Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1 & 2, he deposed that he is dealing in scrap. He admitted that his property documents are not registered. However, he denied that the same are forged and fabricated. He deposed that he had not filed any document which shows that the defendants no.1 & 2 have purchased the property No.142 and 143, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi from Dr. Shabnam. However, the said property was demolished and reconstructed by defendants no.1 & 2. He denied that he wanted to sell his property bearing no. N-151, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi to defendant no.1. He further denied that his property has a chajja in lane of about three feet wide. He admitted that his property had no sanction plan issued by MCD. Further, he has no documentary proof to show that his property was constructed from last 35-40 years. He denied that the architect who prepared the site plan, Ex.PW1/A did not visit the suit property and the same was prepared in Saket Courts. He deposed that he made complaints to the police and the MCD but no action was taken. He denied that the defendants no.1 & 2 did not construct the suit property nor they are the owner of the suit property. He was not aware of any complaint Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed 2025.12.09 15:32:56 +0530 Pg. 7 of 17 filed by any neighbours against defendants no.1 & 2 to the police or the MCD. He denied that the photographs placed on record do not depict any damage or cracks in his property. He further denied that defendants no.1 & 2 never offered money to him or that they met him any point of time during the construction. He further denied that the defendants no.1 & 2 were not the property dealers and not involved in construction. He further denied that he never asked defendants no.1 & 2 to remove the building material and to stop construction
14 During his cross-examination by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3/MCD, he admitted that he did not serve any legal notice to MCD. He further admitted that the defendant no.3 booked the suit property under the by-laws in 2019. He was not aware whether defendant no.3 initiated any sealing proceedings. He admitted that 04.07.2019, defendant no.3 carried out demolition action on the suit property.
15 PW2, Sh. Raman Lal Sharma is ASO from the MCD Office, Lajpat Nagar. He deposed that the MCD had taken action on the complaint dated 12.06.2019, Ex.PW1/C filed by plaintiff. In his cross-examination by Sh. Mohd. Asif, Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1 & 2, he admitted that the said complaint was not given in his presence.
16 PW3, ASI Kavindra deposed that the complaints dated 28.05.2019, 11.06.2019, 17.07.2019 and 30.09.2019 given by the plaintiff with the SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh have been disposed of vide S.O. no. Crime 24/22 and PPRA-11.31 with the approval of Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA Date:
2025.12.09 Pg. 8 of 17 15:33:04 +0530 Add.DCP/SED.
17 Thereafter, plaintiff closed his evidence and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
Defendant's Evidence:
18 In support of his case, the defendant has examined himself as DW.1. DW1/defendant tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.DW1/1. 19 During his cross-examination by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3/MCD, he deposed that he had no knowledge whether the suit property was booked by MCD or not. He did not know whether the is property is opposite of bearing no. N-151, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. He admitted that the MCD has taken action against the property No.142/143, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. 20 In his cross-examination by Sh. Surendra Kumar Roy, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, he deposed that he did not have any office of his own and he works on phone and used to show sites to the parties.
He denied that he and defendant no.2 are builders. He denied knowing the numbers of floors constructed on the suit property. He denied knowing Dr. Shabana. He denied that he and defendant no.2 had purchased the suit property and demolished the same and thereafter raised illegal and unauthorized construction on the suit property. He admitted that he had not made any complaint or filed any case against the plaintiff. He did not know the actual owner of the suit property and also that the MCD had booked the suit property for illegal/unauthorized construction. He did not know whether the suit property is built without sanction plan by MCD/defendant no.3.
Digitally signedRAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA 2025.12.09 Pg. 9 of 17 Date:
15:33:15 +0530 He denied that he had purchased the suit property from Dr. Shabnam. He further denied that he frequently used to visit the suit property as he was building the same. He admitted that plaintiff had made call on 100 number two times regarding unauthorized construction and he along with plaintiff had visited the PS Shaheen Bagh and met the SHO. He admitted that he had visited the shop of the plaintiff situated at Kalkaji, New Delhi for not making complaint against him in respect of suit property as he was not the owner of the same. He denied that due to illegal and unauthorized construction, the property of plaintiff was badly damaged and suffered loss of Rs.4 lacs. He denied that Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B (colly) are the site plan and photographs of the suit property respectively. 21 Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Arguments of plaintiff:
22 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the present suit has been filed as defendants no.1 & 2 are raising unauthorized construction in the suit property. It is further submitted that they have raised construction upto 7th floor without seeking sanction from the concerned authority i.e. defendant no.3. It is further submitted that defendants no.1 & 2 apart from raising unauthorized constructions have also constructed jetty (chajja) on the suit property covering the entire lane and blocked the air and sunlight to the property of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that due to illegal construction raised by defendants no.1 & 2, he is seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against them thereby restraining them to Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed Pg. 10 of 17 2025.12.09 15:33:23 +0530 raise any illegal or unlawful construction in the suit property along with mandatory injunction for demolishing illegal and unauthorized construction in the suit property. The plaintiff is also seeking damages of Rs.4 lacs from defendants no.1 & 2. 23 It is further submitted that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case as he has annexed the photographs of the suit property which show that construction upto seventh floor on the suit property has been carried out. He has further submitted that the plaintiff has made complaints to the MCD vide Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. He has also made complaints to the SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh vide Ex.PW1/E and ACP, New Friends Colony vide Ex.PW1/F. It is further submitted that despite the various complaints made by the plaintiff to various authorities, no action has been taken and the defendants no.1 & 2 are continuing with their illegal construction on the suit property. Thus, it is submitted that the plaintiff has been able to show that defendants no.1 & 2 have raised unauthorized construction in the suit property which resulted in grave loss to the plaintiff. As such, the present suit be decreed in terms of the prayers made.
Arguments of defendants no.1 & 2:
24 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1 & 2 has submitted that this is a false and frivolous case filed by plaintiff. It is further submitted that defendants no.1 & 2 have no concern with the property and they are neither the owner of the suit property nor they have undertaken any construction on the suit property. it is further submitted that apart from bald assertions, the plaintiff has not been able to show any link between the alleged unauthorized construction on the suit property with defendants no.1 & 2. It is further submitted Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed 2025.12.09 Pg. 11 of 17 BHATIA 15:33:31 Date:
+0530 that defendants no.1 & 2 are not proper parties as they have nothing to do with the construction on the suit property. 25 It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that some unauthorized construction has been carried out in the suit property, it is placed on record by way of status report of defendant no.3, MCD that the suit property was identified by the department for doing illegal construction and demolition proceedings were also initiated vide letters dated 30.04.2019 and 20.08.2019. Thus, it is submitted that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case and the suit deserves to be dismissed.
Arguments of defendant no.3:
26 Ld. counsel for defendant no.3 has submitted that SDMC has filed the status report which details the action taken against the suit property.
27 It is submitted that vide letters dated 30.04.2019 and 20.08.2019, sealing proceedings u/s 345A of DMC Act have already been initiated. It is further submitted that to prevent further unauthorized construction, work stoppage letters dated 12.04.2019, 16.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 were sent to the SHO of PS Shaheen Bagh. Further, the defendant no.3 has made various communications to BSES and DJB for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the suit property. thus, it is submitted that the action required to be taken by the defendant no.3 has already been taken. As such, nothing remains in the present suit and the suit ought to be dismissed.
Analysis and Reasoning:
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA Date:
2025.12.09 Pg. 12 of 17
15:33:39 +0530
28 The case of the plaintiff is based upon the fact that the
neighbouring plots of the plaintiff bearing No. N-142 & 143 were initially owned by one Dr. Shabnam. Further, the suit property was sold to defendants no.1 & 2 and they started demolishing the old structure and after that have started illegal and unauthorized construction on the suit property. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against defendants no.1 & 2 for stopping illegal construction along with damages and has also sought mandatory injunction against defendant no.3 thereby directing them to demolish the existing illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by defendants no.1 & 2.
29 Issues were framed in the matter vide order dated 15.05.2023 and three separate issues with regard to permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and damages were framed. The onus of all the three issues was on the plaintiff to prove his case and the plaintiff had to prove the basic ingredients of the fact that he has canvassed, one that the unauthorized construction has been carried out in the suit property and second that the said unauthorized construction has been carried out by defendants no.1 & 2.
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 30 The plaintiff has asserted that the suit property was purchased by defendants no.1 & 2 from the erstwhile one Dr. Shabnam. The fact of ownership on the suit property in the name of defendants no.1 & 2 or raising illegal construction on the suit property has strongly been denied by defendants no.1 & 2. As such, the plaintiff is liable Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed BHATIA Date:
2025.12.09 15:33:46 +0530 Pg. 13 of 17 to prove the ownership of defendants no.1 & 2 or the fact that the defendants no.1 & 2 had undertaken unauthorized construction on the suit property. The plaintiff will also have to show whether action of defendant no.3 by way of issuing stoppage notices took action with regard to mandatory injunction have demolished the illegal construction.
31 Coming to the first point, the ownership of the defendants no.1 & 2 on the suit property. The defendants have denied that they have purchased the suit property. As such, the onus was on the plaintiff to show that the suit property is actually owned by defendants no.1 and
2. The plaintiff has made averments with respect to the ownership on the suit property in his plaint and supported it with his own affidavit in evidence stating that defendants are the owners of the suit property. However, no documentary evidence has been led by plaintiff to show any interest of the defendants no.1 & 2 in the suit property.
32 During arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the area where the suit property is located is transacted by way of Agreement to Sell and Sale Deeds are not registered in the area of the suit property. As such, the plaintiff had not himself proved that the suit property belongs to defendants no.1 & 2. 33 Further, claiming that the suit property has not been transacted through the Sale deed cannot be an excuse to the plaintiff. The onus of proving the ownership of the property was on the plaintiff. Even if the sale deed of the suit property is not registered, the plaintiff could have taken the same steps to prove the ownership of defendants no.1 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.12.09 CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed 15:33:55 +0530 Pg. 14 of 17 & 2 or the fact they were doing illegal construction by other evidence. However, no evidence of any person, other than the plaintiff has been led to show any interest of the defendants no.1 & 2 in the suit property.
34 The plaintiff has claimed that the suit property was sold to defendants no.1 & 2 by one Dr. Shabnam. However, the plaintiff has taken no steps to examine her. Even the list of witnesses filed by plaintiff indicates only plaintiff and officials of MCD and SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh who could have no knowledge as to the actual ownership of the suit property.
35 Thus, what appears is that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to link defendants no.1 & 2 to the suit property or the unauthorized construction being carried upon. The plaintiff has filed certain photographs of the suit property, Ex.PW1/B showing construction of around seven floors on the suit property. However, apart from the averments of the plaintiff, there is nothing on record to show that the photographs are actually of the suit property. Moreover, even if it is assumed that Ex.PW1/B are the photographs of the suit property, the same do not link the suit property and the defendants no.1 & 2. Even in the photographs, nowhere it has been shown that defendants no.1 & 2 are present and supervising the construction. No evidence of any independent witness in the area of the suit property has been led to collaborate the assertions of the plaintiff that the defendants no.1 & 2 are owners of the suit property. 36 Since the onus of proving the ownership of suit property was on the plaintiff and plaintiff has led no evidence to show any interest Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.12.09 CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed 15:34:04 +0530 Pg. 15 of 17 of the defendants no.1 & 2 in the suit property, it cannot be concluded that either defendants no.1 or 2 are the owners of the suit property or are undergoing any construction in the suit property. The onus of this fact was squarely on the plaintiff and unless defendants no.1 & 2 are the owners of the suit property, no order or injunction can be granted against them. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove any connection of defendants no.1 & 2 with the suit property. Thus, only on this count, the suit merits dismissal. Thus, the said two issues are decided in the negative and against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
37 Coming to the next aspect of construction being undertaken, the defendant no.3, MCD has filed status report which shows that sealing proceedings have already been initiated and the wall of the building was punctured. Further, it is revealed that work stoppage letters have also been issued to defendants no.1 & 2. Thus, even if the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that construction on the suit property is accepted, the same will have no effect on the present case the plaintiff has not been able to show that the defendants no.1 & 2 have taken any action on the suit property. 38 Even if it is assumed and accepted that unauthorized construction has been carried upon the Suit Property, it has not been proved that the same was carried out by the defendant no. 1 & 2. As such, it has not been proved that who has carried out the construction on the Suit Property. As the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the construction on the suit property has been carried out by the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed Pg. 16 of 17 Date:
BHATIA 2025.12.09 15:34:11 +0530 defendant no. 1 & 2, rights of a 3rd party are likely to be affected in case any order is passed for mandatory injunction. The same cannot be done without hearing the said concerned party, whom the plaintiff could not identify.
39 In view of above discussion, it is clear that plaintiff has failed to discharge onus on him to prove the involvement of defendants no.1 & 2 in the suit property. As such, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Relief:
40 In view of above discussion, no merit is found in the present suit and the suit is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 41 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
42 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.12.09 Announced in the open (RAHUL BHATIA) 15:34:19 +0530 Court on 05.12.2025 District Judge-01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ- 160/20 Mohd. Shokin Malik Vs. Javed Pg. 17 of 17