Delhi District Court
Tara Chand Monga vs Sub Divisional Magistrate on 28 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA JAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE-03
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
RCA DJ 06/2021
In the matter of: -
TARA CHAND MONGA ............. Appellant
Versus
1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
A.K. SHARMA
SEELAM PUR, DELHI
2. SHO
P.S. KARAWAL NAGAR,
DELHI. ...........Respondents
Appeal filed on : 05.03.2021
Arguments heard on : 26.07.2024
Judgment pronounced on: 28.08.2024
JUDGMENT
APPEAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT U/S 96 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 27.01.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURIA, LD. ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, IN SUIT NO. 463/2019 TITLED AS 'TARA CHAND MOGHA VS. S.D.M & ANOTHER.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dt. 27.01.2021, whereby suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.
2. Notice of the appeal was directed upon the respondents. Both the respondents have been duly served.
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 13. TCR has also been called. I have perused the record.
Before dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal, in my opinion a brief summary of facts, for the purpose of disposal of appeal is required which can be conveniently culled out from the order penned down by the Ld. Trial Court itself.
4. Brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the present dispute are as follows:-
It has been stated that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the suit property i.e. plot measuring 250 sq.yards, khasra No. 39/5/2, Rect. No. 39, located at Rama Garden,Main Karawal Nagar Road, opp. MCD Maternity Hospital, Karawal Nagar Delhi-94 by Shri Om Parkash @ Rs.1000/- per month for carrying out the business of automobiles repairs. It has been stated that the plaintiff has been regularly paying rent to the landord. However, the landlord has been trying to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. It has been stated that the plaintiff and his son were also beaten by the landlord and in this regard a Kalandra u/sec. 160/151 Cr.P.C. was prepared. It has been stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the landlord bearing No. 127/04 which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It has been stated that the landlord of the plaintiff Sh. Om Prakash has transferred the property to one Manoj Vashisht illegally and the said Manoj Vashist has asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit property. That the said Manoj Vashist has also filed a suit for possession against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property which is subjudiced. It has been stated that the landlord of the property has in connivance with Manoj Vashist made a plan to get the suit property sealed.RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 2
5. It has also been stated that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of repairing car engines in the suit property . It has also been stated that there is no electricity or water connection in the suit property and therefore no manufacturing or any other job of polluting nature can be carried out in the suit property. It has also been stated that in Karawal Nagar, there are around 40 shops carrying out the job of auto workshop and the said shops are also using electricity and water supply for the services of denting and painting. It has been stated that the defendant No.1 without giving any prior notice to the plaintiff has on 03.05.2008, put the seal on the premises of the plaintiff with the assistance of defendant No.2. It has been stated that the defendants have told the plaintiff that the only option available to the plaintiff is to vacate the suit property and to handover possession to one Rakesh Kumar. It has been stated that the suit property has been sealed at the instance of Om Prakash, Manoj Vashisht and Rakesh Kumar. It has also been stated that in the sealing order dt. 03.05.2008, the defendant No.1 has nowhere mentioned as to in which category of jobs the work of the suit property falls. It has been stated that in the absence of electricity equipment no job of denting painting or any other heavy car job can be carried out. It has been stated that the defendants have deprived the plaintiff from the source of his livelihood. It has also been stated that the sealing order is bad as no prior show cause notice has been given to the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has accordingly filed the present suit praying for a decree of declaration declaring the action of the defendants and the sealing order dt. 03.05.2008 as null and void. The plaintiff has also prayed for a RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 3 decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the seal put on the suit property. Plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any hindrance in carrying out his business in the suit property.
7. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and has stated that the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It has also been stated that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this court and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It has been stated that the defendant No.1 has rightly and validly sealed the suit property. It has been stated that a complaint was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner (North East) regarding pollution due to illegal running of workshop in the suit property from the monitoring committee appointed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It has also been stated that there was complaint of noise pollution by the residents of Karawal Nagar dt. 27.09.2007 and that the maternity centre of the MCD had also complained in this regard. It has been stated that in this regard the Tehsildar (Seelampur) had filed his report stating that a workshop was being run on the suit property for the last 8 years. It has been stated that on the complaints of the monitoring committee and as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding sealing of industries causing air, water and noise pollution, it was decided to seal the workshop on 03.05.2008. It has been stated that at the time of sealing of the suit property the denting, painting and repairs of the vehicles was going on. It has also been stated that noise and air pollution was noticed and the pollution was causing bad affect on the health of mothers of newly born children in the nearby maternity home. It has been stated that the sealing report was RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 4 conveyed to Deputy Commissioner (North East) and to monitoring committee on 05.05.2008. Replying on merits, the defendant No.1 has stated that the suit property is situated in residential non confirming area of Delhi and the plaintiff is running the business of car repairing, denting and painting which is covered under unauthorized industrial activities as per orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The defendant No.1 has denied other averments made in the plaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the present suit.
8. After completion of pleadings following issues were framed as Under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Relief.
9. During trial of the present suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, Sh. Jayant Kumar, LDC from the office of SDM Seelam Pur as PW3 and Sh. Lokesh Kumar, LDC from Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts, as PW.3 to prove the facts as asserted by him in his plaint. Thereafter the case was fixed for defendant evidence.
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 510. Defendant/SDM Sh. A.K. Sharma had stepped into witness box and tendered his evidence and examined as DW1, to prove the defence taken by him in the written statement. He was also cross-examined partly on 28.09.2011, 02.03.2012 and 05.06.2012. However, testimony of said witness was not concluded and in terms of court's order dt. 29.07.2013, right of the defendant to lead further DE was closed.
11. The Appellate Court of Ld. ADJ-02 (East) vide order dt. 06.04.2019 in RCA No.53/16 titled as Tara Chand Mogha vs. SDM remanded back the suit to the Court of Civil Judge with direction to conclude the remaining evidence of DW-1 A.K. Sharma after affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine him. Subsequently, vide order dt. 16.01.2020, Ld. Civil Judge was constrained to close the stage of DE in present suit as defendant could not produce the DW-1 for further cross-examination despite affording various opportunities and specific direction of the Court for the same.
12. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
A. Ld. Trial court has failed to observe that the monitory committed has been abolished by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and no any committee has been formed, delegating the power equivalent to monitoring committee.
B. Because the observation of trial court that to approach monitoring committee first prior coming to RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 6 court is totally unlawful and wrong observation of the court. Sec. 9 of CPC very well defined the jurisdiction of Civil Court.
C. Because the trial court has wrongly observed that the appellant has sought for adjudication of the main relief by getting disposal of the application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is totally illegal and wrong observation.
D. Because there is averments in the pleading as well as the same is part of the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and from the record, it is proved that there is no any activities which could be said to be activities of effect the specifically under category "F" hence the sealing of property under the grab of allegation for operating the factory is in itself illegal and ought to be set aside forthwith.
E. It is further averred that material aspects have also been ignored by the trial court and that there is no material placed by the respondent after getting opportunity to establish that the action of sealing dt. 03.05.2008, the premises under the possession of appellant/plaintiff was followed by the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and prayed for setting a side the order dt. 27.01.2021 passed by the court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Rampuria, Addl. Senior Civil Judge/East/KKD Courts, Delhi in suit no.
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 7463/2019 titled as "Tara Chand Mogha Vs. S.D.M & Anr.
13. Arguments heard on behalf of appellant. Respondent has not come up for arguments in the present appeal.
14. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:
"Whether the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order dt. 27.01.2021?"
15. Ld. Trial Court in its judgment on all issues held in favour of respondent and returned findings against the appellant.
16. The relevant observation of Ld. Trial Court are as follows:
"9.2 The plaintiff has sought a decree of declaration in his favour thereby declaring sealing order bearing no. SDM/Ne/2007/2112-13 dated 03.05.2008 issued by defendant SDM as null and void ab initio and without any legal force. The burden of proof in respect of aforesaid issue was on the plaintiff only to prove as to how the act of defendant SDM was illegal and therefore, null and void ab initio. However, plaintiff could not prove as to how his repairing work of scooter/motorcycles/cars at suit premises in the name and style of Dharma Automobiles was not causing any noise or air pollution. Plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that some maternity centre was situated near to the suit property in the given area. However plaintiff has claimed that he was repairing alleged minor defects of car engine like self and alternator problem in the car engine. It was also suggested by the defendant during cross-examination of plaintiff that even for said rectification in the engines of car, the electricity is required and he was also carrying out denting/painting of cars and scooter in the said suit premises. The plaintiff had denied said suggestions. However, plaintiff could not convince the court as to how he was doing car repair work at suit premises without any electricity or water and that too without causing any pollution RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 8 including noise and air pollution in given area. It is judicially noticeable fact that generally any repair work of engine of any motor vehicle having battery and engine oil cannot be said to be done without causing pollution of any type particularly in densely populated area of Delhi. On other hand, defendant SDM admitted that he had issued the said sealing order dated 03.05.2008 in respect of workshop of plaintiff on receiving complaint of pollution against said workshop in the office of Dy. Commissioner (North-East) from monitoring committee appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Defendant SDM (DWI) also stated that the letter of said monitoring committee dated 16.10.2007, a complaint dated 27.09.2007 of resident of Karawal Nagar was also forwarded therewith. It is noticeable that in said complaint, the complainant had claimed that there was noise pollution due to denting/painting of vehicle and air pollution due to repair of diesel/ petrol vehicles. DW1 further stated that there was a bad effect on the health of new born babies as well as old aged persons due to noise and air pollution caused by the said workshop in nearby maternity centre, which was situated just opposite to the workshop of the plaintiff. DW1 had stated in his WS that the monitoring committee had sought action taken report in the matter in its letters addressed to DC (North East) dated 22.01.2008, 12.02.2008 and 25.04.2008 and DC (North-East) also recorded on these letter that action should be taken and report should be submitted. Finally, defendant SDM has stated on the basis of those complaint and the report of Tehsildar (Seelampur) and directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding sealing of Industries involved in air/water/noise pollution, the said workshop of the plaintiff was sealed on 03.05.2008. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the Municipal Board Vs. B. Mangli Lal: AIR 1952 ALL 554 quoted following authorities on Malice motive of alleged wrong doer and reasonable and probable cause for the action in question and same are reproduced as under:-
"13. In Braja Sunder Deb Vs. Bambed Das, 1941 All L.J. 137 the Privy Council held that malice means a wrong or indirect motive and a prosecution is not malicious merely because it is inspired by anger, and both malice as well as want of reasonable and probable cause were necessary before a claim for damages for malicious prosecution could be decreed.
14. In J.B. Lister Vs. Henry Perryman, (1869 70) 4 Ε. & Ir. A. C. 521 at p. 531 Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherley) observed: "What is now to be decided is this, how far this gentlemen, having this information conveyed to him, may be said to have reasonably and RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 9 discreety trusted his informant ........ Information given by one person of whom the party knows nothing, would be regarded very differently from information given by one whom he knows to be a sensible and trustworthy person. And the question whether or not a reasonable man would or would not act upon the information must depend in a great degree upon the opinion to be formed of the position and circumstances of the informant, and of the amount of credit which may be due under those circumstances to the person who thus conveyed the information.
In this situation how plaintiff can claim that the defendant SDM has sealed his said premises with malafide intent and without any legal basis in view of the action taken report sought from him by his senior authority i.e. DC on the complaint forwarded by the monitoring committee constituted on Court's order. Further, the court has to presume the said sealing order of defendant SDM and official communication between monitoring committee and DC concerned genuine as per Section 79 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It has also been stated by the plaintiff in his plaint itself that in Karawal Nagar, there were around 50 shops carrying out the job of auto workshop and the said shops are also using electricity and water supply for the services of repairs, denting, painting etc. but defendants had not stopped such activity or sealed such premises concerned except the premises of plaintiff. Here too, the plaintiff can't claim that it is only his auto workshop which was being run without any electricity or water and therefore, his workshop was incapable of causing any air or noise pollution. Further, plaintiff can't plead with any legal justification as to since other pollution causing auto workshops had not been sealed and therefore his workshop could also not have been sealed by the competent authority as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Hon'ble High Court for closure of pollution causing industries in residential area of Delhi. It is noticeable that a wrong doer cannot take legal defence as to he cannot be subjected to legal action mere on the ground that other wrong doer has not been caught for any reason. It is also noticeable that an auto workshop might not have official electricity or water connection from supplying body but that does not mean same could not have unauthorized supply of same or even otherwise it cannot claimed that it can't cause pollution of any kind in given area ipso facto. Defendant SDM further stated that denting and painting machines were removed from the auto workshop in question by the plaintiff as per his verbal instructions. The plaintiff also failed to establish as to how his auto workshop was in exempted category of RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 10 industry or it was confirming the criteria for the same and how defendant SDM was not legally capable to seal his auto workshop particularly in view of complaint of pollution and action taken report sought by DC concerned at the insistence of monitoring committee formed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court for sealing prohibited industries in a residential area. It is noticeable plaintiff has not claimed that he has any license or legal permission from MCD and other competent authority for running any such auto workshop at the suit property and he has been complying rule and regulations meant for checking pollution particularly in residential area of National Capital. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff contended that plaintiff has constitutionally granted right to livelihood and defendant had deprived him from said right illegally. However, the plaintiff cannot claim absolute freedom of his choice of livelihood without due compliance of relevant rules and regulations and directions of the courts or competent authorities on any given aspect governing such source of livelihood and right to pollution free environment is also fundamental right of neighbours and residents of given area and also same is treated at higher pedestal than right to livelihood. In this situation, this court of considered view that the plaintiff could not discharge his burden of proof in respect of issue no.1. .....XXXXXX On issue no.4
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 127 (2006) DLT 226 (SC) issued various directions for sealing the premises on account of misuse of residential premises against relevant bylaws and also constituted a monitoring committee for overseeing the implementing it's order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 11.05.2006, in said case directed as under:-
"Be that as it may, we reiterate that no Court other than this Court will have any jurisdiction to make any order of de- sealing the premises sealed under the order of this Court."
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Carma Arts and Crafts Pvt. Ltd Vs. MCD 139 (2007) DLT 671 observed as under while dealing with issue of sealing of premises on the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Monitoring Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the directions contained in the order dated 16.2.2006 was only expected to deal with the residential premises which were being misused and had no concern with unauthorized construction. He accordingly submits that the Monitoring RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 11 Committee ought not to have dealt with the matter at all. Further, since the Monitoring Committee lacks jurisdiction, the order dated 11.05.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court forbidding any other Court from dealing with the matter cannot apply in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further urged that the Monitoring Committee erred in ignoring the evidence placed on record before it to support the contention that the petitioner was in continuous commercial use of the property in question even prior to 1962."
14. "Notwithstanding the repeated submissions by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 can never be ousted, this Court is barred (sic. Bound) to abide by the above mandatory direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 11.05.2006. Such orders are traceable to the plenary power of the Hon'ble supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is not possible for this Court, therefore, to entertain this write petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Consequently, the application is dismissed. This will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court for relief."
It is noticeable that plaintiff had not claimed that he had approached either Department of Industries, Govt. of NCTD, said monitoring committee or Hon'ble supreme Court of India for de-sealing his workshop in question, which was sealed by defendant SDM on being asked by DC concerned for action taken report in respect of the workshop of the plaintiff in view of letter of monitoring committee dated 22.01.2008. It is noticeable that the Gazette notification dated 30.01.2008 Ex.DW1/A relates to suspension of punitive action in respect of encroachment/unauthorized development referred to Section 3 of National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2007 upto 31.12.2008 and action as per relevant laws shall continued to taken by local authorities in respect of other categories of encroachment and unauthorized development. In present suit it has been consistent stand of defendant SDM that he has sealed the suit premises while taking action on the complaint of causing pollution by the workshop of plaintiff, which was forwarded by monitoring committee to DC concerned for appropriate action. In this situation said Gazette notification does not apply to the case of plaintiff."
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 1217. Having heard the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds itself entirely in agreement with the aforesaid observation of Ld. Trial Court. The Trial Court Record shows that the appellant has claimed that the entire area of village Karawal Nagar has been declared Lal Dora Area but no such notification has been placed on record by the plaintiff. It is claimed by plaintiff that the plaintiff was carrying out manual repairing of minor defects of car engines and there was no any electricity supply or water connection survived in the suit property therefore, in the absence of all these amenities any commercial activities cannot be carried out. In this regard Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that if no electricity or water supply is lawfully installed in the suit premises it does not automatically mean that the plaintiff cannot use the electricity. Further, in the common parlance it is improbable that repairing of even minor defects of car engines can be done without noise pollution. The next argument of defendant is that in the whole area of Karawal Nagar despite of being in operation around 50 automobile workshop which are being run with the electricity and water supply for different kind of services including repairs, denting painting etc. but neither the defendant no.1 nor defendant no.2 ever stopped or put any seal upon those premises. In this regard it is observed that a wrong doer could not claim that the action taken against him is illegal just because other wrong doers has not been captured.
18. It is worthwhile to note that the defendant no.1 took the action against the plaintiff in compliance of order of monitoring committee which was passed in pursuance of complaint of one of the resident of colony. The relevant extract of the complaint is being reproduced hereinbelow:
'"Shri K. Rav Monitoring Committee on U/C
Chairman Supreme Court Delhi High Court
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 13
Monitoring Committee Diary No. 4011
India Habitat Centre Date 27.09.2007
New Delhi
Subject: Workshop band karane hetu Prarthana Patra Mahoday Ji Savinay nivedan yeh hai ki ham samast Karawal Nagar-vasi Dharam Auto Mobile se bahut pareshan hain. Yahan par diesel va petrol ki gaadi repair hoti rehti hai jiske dhuyen se pradushan hota hai aur denting painting se dhwani pradushan hota rehta hai. Aur uske thik samne Dilli Nagar Nigam ka jaccha-bachha kendra bhi hai dhuyen ka nanhe munne bachhon ke swasthya par bhi bura asar padta hai aur colony ke bachhon va budhon parbhi shor va dhuyen se padhai va bimari ka bhi khatra bana rehta hai. Hamne iski pehle bhi shikayat ki this jiski kapiyan sanlagna hai. Parantu vibhagiya karamchari isko pehle hi suchna de dete hain. Hamne licensing Kashmiri Gate-SDM Court Seelampur, SHO, Gokulpuri-DC Office MCD va Licensing Vibhag va Bhawan Vibhag Shahdara Uttari Shetra ko bhi shikayat ki this lekin uska koi asar nahin hua aur ham daftaron ke chakkar laga- laga kar thak gaye. Tab kisi jankar ne bataya ki aap monitoring committee ke pass jao apki samasya ka samadhan turant ho jayega. Atah badi ummeed se apko avgat karaya hai. Atah aap hamari samasyaon ko dekhte huye isko turant band karwane ki kripa karen.
Apki ati kripa hogi.
Dhanyawad
samast Karawal Nagar Road-Nivasi
Hukum Chand, Narendra, Mahesh Prarthi
Ashok, Surendra, Malkhan, Kartar Singh Ravindra Kumar putra
Jagtar Singh, Dinesh, Jagdev, Ramnath, Shri Jasdev Singh
Ummed Singh, Jagdish ityadi Niwasi: A-206, Rama Garden
Prati: Karawal Nagar Main Road, Delhi-110094 "
19. The defendant no.1 has relied upon the document Ex.DW1/2 and sealing order dt. 03.05.2008 exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and a letter/complaint dt. 27.09.2007 Mark A. Perusal of these document clears that the defendant no.1 took action against the plaintiff by sealing property in compliance of order dt. 03.05.2008 which was passed in pursuance of complaint from one of the residents of Karawal Nagar namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar. In these circumstances, when the defendant no.1 has complied the order of higher RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 14 authority, his action cannot be stated to be unlawful or illegal.
20. Ld. Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the question of maintainability of the present suit since in the said case, it was specifically directed by the Apex Court that no Court other than the Hon'ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass any order of de-sealing the premises sealed under the order of Apex Court. The workshop of plaintiff was sealed by defendant/SDM on being asked by the DC concerned for action taken report in respect of the workshop of plaintiff in pursuance of letter of monitoring committee dt. 22.01.2008. By way of present suit, the plaintiff is asking for declaring the action of sealing by the SDM as illegal. Meaning thereby in the garb of decree for declaration, the plaintiff was asking the trial Court for de-sealing his workshop. However, as per the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, Ld. Trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for de-sealing the premises which was sealed in compliance of order of monitoring committee.
21. During the whole trial the defendant/SDM remained consistent that he has sealed the suit property while taking action on the complaint of causing pollution made by resident in the same vicinity, which was forwarded by monitoring committee to DC concerned for appropriate action in the said situation, the action of SDM/sealing of the plaintiff's workshop cannot be declared as illegal.
22. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that Ld. Trial Court was correct in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of declaration as prayed by him in his plaint.
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 15CONCLUSION
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that present appeal deserves dismissal being merit-less.
24. Trial Court Record together with the copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
25. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in the open Court ( POOJA JAIN)
on 28.08.2024 District Judge-03,
Court No.206, N/B, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
RCA DJ 06/21 TARA CHAND MONGA VS. SDM & ANR. 16