Delhi District Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs M/S Prs Homespaces Pvt. Ltd on 12 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER,
(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 122/18
CNR No. DLST03-000185-2018
In the matter of:
1. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
S/O Late Sh. Chunni Lal Singh,
2. SMT. PUSHPA SINGH
W/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal Singh,
Both R/o C-73, First Floor,
JVTS Garden, Chattarpur,
New Delhi-110074.
....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. M/S PRS HOMESPACES PVT. LTD.
Through its Director,
Sh. Ram Rajput
S/o Sh. R.S. Rajput,
Regd. Office At:
D-50, Chhattarpur Enclave,
New Delhi-110074.
2. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through its Commissioner/Deputy Comissioner
Sri Aurobindo Marg, Green Park Extn.,
Green Park, Block-A,
New Delhi-110016.
....Defendants
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 06.02.2018
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1/20
Date of Reserving : 29.04.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent and mandatory injunction.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present suit are that the plaintiffs are claiming that they are the absolute owners and in possession of suit property i.e. C-540, measuring about 150 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 963/2 (2-8) situated at JVTS Garden, Chhattarpur Extension, New Delhi. They had engaged the defendant no.1 as a contractor under collaboration agreement for construction of building over the suit property. In pursuance thereto, the plaintiffs entered into collaboration agreements dated 28.04.2017 and supplementary collaboration agreements dated 12.05.2017 and also dated 24.07.2017 for development of the suit property in collaboration with the defendant no.1.
2.1 The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant no.1 had breached the said collaboration agreements and had failed to live up to the promises made to them because defendant no.1 failed to obtain the necessary sanctions from the competent authority including the defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 had made illegal and unauthorized constructions over the suit property and this necessitated the filing of the present suit.
2.2 By way of the present suit, the plaintiffs are seeking direction as to the demolition of unauthorized construction over the suit property and are also seeking restraining the defendant CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2/20 no.1 and also injunction whereby restraining defendant no. 1 from constructing unauthorized construction in the suit property. In addition, they are also seeking permanent injunction against the defendant no. 1 from creating third party interest in the suit property on the basis of the said collaboration agreements dated 28.04.2017 and its supplementary agreements dated 12.05.2017 and 24.08.2017.
3. Summons were directed to be issued to all the defendants and accordingly summons were served upon them.
Written Statement was filed by the defendant no. 1
4. In Written Statement, it is averred by the defendant no.1 that the suit is not maintainable as he has already filed a case before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD vide appeal No. 259 of 2018 titled as 'M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SDMC' against the demolition and sealing orders of SDMC and hence the Ld. Appellate Tribunal of MCD is seized with the matter. Thus, the whole of the present suit has become infructuous and the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Further, the defendant no.1 never agreed to obtain the sanction plan for the suit property from the competent authorities and the collaboration agreements nowhere mention about the same. The present suit has been filed in order to wriggle out of the obligations of the said collaboration agreements and in order to extort more money from the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has complied with the law as well as the collaboration agreements. The plaintiff has intentionally filed a suit for CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 3/20 injunction, though in law, only a suit for specific performance or suit for cancellation of the collaboration agreements lies. The reason may be to avoid the requisite court fee. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 41 (f) and Section 41 (i) of the Specific Relief Act.
4.1 The defendant no.1 had sold/transferred one shop at the ground floor to Smt. Munni Devi and Sh. Ram Parvesh vide documents dated 06.02.2018. The defendant no.1 has transferred the basement of the suit property to Sh. Hemant Goel vide documents dated 15.02.2018 and had executed advance agreement to sell in favour of Smt. Linghma Choudhary vide documents dated 30.01.2018 in relation to the second floor of the property. Further, the defendant no.1 had executed documents dated 15.02.2018 in respect of the third floor of the property in favour of Smt. Rama Julka. Thus, they all are necessary parties to the said case and because they have not been impleaded by the plaintiffs, the present suit is liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Written Statement was filed by the defendant no. 2/SDMC
5. In written statement, it is averred by the defendant no.2 that the present suit is not maintainable because the suit property is already booked for unauthorized construction vide file No. 577/UC/B-II/SZ/17 dated 07.11.2017 for taking necessary action for demolition under Section 343/344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Even the necessary demolition order has also been passed by the competent authority i.e. the then AE (Bldg.), CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4/20 South Zone on 15.11.2017. Vide letter dated 16.11.2017, the defendant no.2 had already sent a request to SHO, PS: Mehrauli to stop any unauthorized construction immediately and to remove any workmen, if present, from the suit property and also to seize any construction material lying thereupon. The defendant no.2 had also taken steps for prosecution of the defendant no.2 vide its complaint letter dated 30.11.2017 to SHO, PS: Mehrauli. Also, the defendant no.2 had sent letters dated 16.11.2017 for disconnection of electricity and water supplies of the aforesaid suit property. The defendant no.2 averred that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non disclosure of cause of action and also for suppression/concealment of material facts. The said suit is liable to be dismissed also because the plaintiffs have not come to this court with clean hands.
ISSUES
6. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed:
1. Whether defendant no.1 had carried out any unauthorized construction in the suit property? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD1
5. Whether plaintiffs have approached the court with unclean hands? OPD-1
6. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present for? OPD-1
7. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(f) and (i) of Specific Relief Act? OPD-1 CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5/20
8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD-1
9. Whether no cause of action survives against defendant no.2? OPD-2
10. Relief.
7. After framing of issues, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE:
8. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs have examined only one witness i.e. PW-1/Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh.
9. PW-1/Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh/plaintiff no.1 has tendered his evidence which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/A relying upon the following documents i.e.:
(i) Copy of collaboration agreement as Mark-A;
(ii) Copy of supplementary collaboration agreement dated 12.05.2017 as Mark-B;
(iii) Copy of supplementary collaboration agreement dated 21.08.2017 as Mark-C;
(iv) Copy of legal notice dated 22.12.2017 as Ex.PW1/1;
(v) Copy of reply of legal notice dated 30.12.2017 as Ex.PW1/2;
(vi) Copy of photographs as Ex.PW1/3 (nine pages photographs);
10. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for defendants and was discharged and PE was closed on 15.10.2022 and thereafter, the matter was listed for DE.
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6/20DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE:
11. The defendants did not produce DE within the time as prescribed by this court despite repeated opportunities and hence, the evidence qua defendants no.1 and 2 stood closed on 24.02.2023.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
12. Final arguments were tendered by the Ld. Counsels for the parties and the same was heard by the court. Also, Written arguments were also filed by the defendants no. 1 and 2 which are on record.
FINDING ON ISSUES:
Issue no.1
13. I shall first deal with the issue no.1 as under:-
1. Whether defendant no.1 had carried out any unauthorized construction in the suit property? OPP
14. The status reports filed by SDMC/defendant no.2 dated 26.02.2018 and 30.08.2018 show that the whole suit property had been constructed from basement to fourth floor stands already booked for demolition action under Section 343/344 of the DMC Act. Further, necessary demolition orders also stand passed as on 15.11.2017 and 21.02.2018. Thus, it is amply clear that it is proved that there has been unauthorized construction by the CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 7/20 defendant no.1. It remains a moot issue whether the same will be subsequently regularized or not by the competent authority, but it cannot be questioned that there has been unauthorized construction at the suit property. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1.
Issue no.4
15. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.4 as under:-
4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPD1
16. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 1. The defendant no.1 has alleged that the suit is barred by mis- joinder of parties because the written statement had been filed by M/s PR Homespaces Pvt. Ltd., though the memo of parties has impleaded M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. as defendant no.1. It is the allegation of the defendant no.1 that the concerned authority/party involved is M/s PR Homespaces Pvt. Ltd., but the plaintiffs have impleaded M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. instead. As per the case of defendant no.1, these two entities are distinct corporate bodies having separate identity. Thus, it seems, that the plaintiffs have wrongly impleaded M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. instead of M/s PR Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. However, defendant no. 1 has failed to produce any official documents/official record to prove the separate distinct identities of the said two corporate bodies, though the burden was upon the defendant no. 1. Thus, the plea of mis-joinder of parties has to CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8/20 fail.
17. With regard to issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, the defendants no.1 have alleged that they have transferred the one shop on a ground floor, basement of the suit property, second floor and third floor with terrace to separate persons already and because they have not been impleaded, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is a well settled law that non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal to the suit, as per Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, the reliance is placed on the case of 'Moreshar Y. Mahajan Vs. V. Sitaram Bhedi & Ors.' [2022 SCC Online SC 1037], wherein it has been held that if a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A party whose presence is necessary for the adjudication of the case and without whose presence, an effective decree cannot be passed is held to be a necessary party in that case. Now, the issue arises that, persons having registered power of attorney, registered sale agreement, special power of attorney, possession letter, receipt, etc. and other such like documents can be considered to be owner of the suit property. In Suraj Lamp Vs. State of Haryana, in SLP No. 13917/2009 decided on 11.10.2011, it has been held that only people having registered sale deed alone are considered to be owners of the property because a sale is completed only by way of a registered deed of sale, and not by any other documents. However, it must be noted that even people not having registered sale deed in their favour have some residuary rights, for example, rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, etc. Thus, it would be too harsh to decide that such persons are not necessary parties to a CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9/20 dispute where injunction has been sought against those portions of property where they are in possession pursuant to registered property documents other than registered sale deed(s). Hence, in the opinion of this court, the subsequent purchasers of the portions of the suit property namely Smt. Munni Devi, Sh. Ram Parvesh, Sh. Hemant Goel, Smt. Lighma Choudhary and Smt. Rama Julka are necessary parties for the proper adjudication of the suit because they would be directly affected by the outcome of the present suit.
Thus, in light of the above discussion, the present suit is bad by non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, issue no.4 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant no.1.
Issue no.5
18. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.5 as under:-
5. Whether plaintiffs have approached the court with unclean hands? OPD-1
19. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 1. It is a settled law that the relief of injunction is an equitable relief. He who seeks equity must do equity. Thus, conduct of the parties involved in the case is a relevant fact in a suit for injunction. It has been alleged by the defendants that there has been material suppression of facts by the plaintiffs. It is the opinion of this court that the plaintiffs have indeed suppressed relevant and material facts from the consideration of this court in as much as the entire proceedings before SDMC/MCD regarding demolition CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10/20 orders, sealing of the suit property, etc. have not been disclosed either in the plaint or in the evidentiary affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were in complete knowledge of the proceedings pending with the MCD/SDMC in relation to the suit property, but they deliberately chose not to apprise this court with the full and true facts involved in the case. This is amply clear that from the cross-examination of the PW-1/Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh/plaintiff no.1 dated 06.06.2022, wherein the said witness admitted that the suit property was sealed on his complaint while the construction was being carried out by the defendant no.1. Thus, it is clear that he withheld all the said crucial facts from this court with a deliberate intent to obtain orders based on incomplete information and based on half knowledge being furnished before this court. The brief list of the facts withheld from this court are enunciated as under:
i) The order dated 07.11.2017 whereby the property was booked for demolition.
ii) The necessary demolition order dated 15.11.2017.
iii) The request letter sent to the police dated 16.11.2017.
iv) The complaint letter sent to the police dated 30.11.2017.
v) The request for disconnection of electricity and water supply dated 16.11.2017.
vi) The sealing of the suit property by the defendant no.1.
vii) The pendency of proceedings before the ATMCD regarding the demolition and sealing orders.
The said conduct of the plaintiffs show that they were in knowledge of these aforesaid facts but they did not apprise the court regarding them because it might become difficult for them to obtain the reliefs as prayed for from this court.
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 11/2020. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Ramjas Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.' [2010 (14) SCC 38], wherein it was held that:
"(i) 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, 223 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 a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.
(ii) In Dalglish v. Jarvie, Mac & G at p. 238, Lord Langdale and Rolfe, B. observe: (ER p. 89) "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."
21. Applying the law to the instant case, this court is duty bound to dismiss the present suit on the ground of the plaintiffs having approached the court with unclean hands by failing to disclose material facts within their knowledge.
Hence, issue no.5 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour the defendant no.1.
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 12/20Issue no.6:
22. Now, I shall first deal with the issue no.6 as under:-
6. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present for?
OPD-1
23. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 1. It is alleged by defendant no.1 that the present suit is not maintainable. One of the reasons for this claim by the defendant no.1 is that he averred that he (defendant no.1) had already approached defendant no.2 for regularization of the unauthorized construction on the suit property and moreover, an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble ATMCD regarding the demolition and sealing orders passed in respect of the suit property. The details of the appeal being appeal No. ATMCD/259/2018 titled as 'M/s PR Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SDMC'. However, it is the opinion of this court that there is no bar in law in respect to a suit of injunction restraining the offending party from raising unauthorized construction in future. The aforesaid proceedings under the DMC Act deal only with the sealing and demolition orders as existing as on today. There is no bar on jurisdiction of a civil court to protect a lawful owner from raising an illegal construction by the developer in future. Merely because demolition or sealing orders have been passed and the same are under challenge, does not mean that it debars the competent court of civil jurisdiction from passing injunction orders regarding preventing further unauthorized construction in the future. No doubt, the MCD/SDMC has the power to take action to stop any CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 13/20 illegal construction, but this does not prevent a competent court to pass injunction orders as aforesaid in appropriate cases. It is a known fact that unauthorized construction or illegal construction in violation of building bye-laws and building regulations must be dealt strictly in appropriate cases. Thus, to say that the suit per se is not maintainable would be incorrect in law. However, it must be noted that maintainability of the suit is one issue and giving of final relief based on appreciation of facts in a particular case is altogether a different issue. It is to be noted that the only section which bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts in the matters relating to DMC Act as may be applicable to the instant case is Section 347-E of the DMC Act. As per this Section, there is a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect to challenging/questioning the DMC orders/notice passed under Section 343 of the said Act. However, it is the opinion of this court that in the instant case there is no challenge or questioning of a notice passed under Section 343, rather the issue in this case is whether additional relief of injunction can be granted in respect to a matter which is already undergoing proceedings under the DMC Act. In the opinion of this court, the civil court of competent jurisdiction has such a power vested in it.
23.1 Another issue as to maintainability raised by the defendant no.1 is that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for specific performance or a suit for cancellation of collaboration agreements instead of a simplicitor suit of injunction.
In this regard, it has to be seen whether the suit of specific performance or suit for cancellation, as alleged, would be an equally efficacious remedy or not.
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 14/2023.2 With regard to the issue of suit of specific performance, no doubt, the plaintiffs have made some allegations regarding non- performance or improper performance of the collaboration agreements, but the prayer regarding injunction for future restraining of unauthorized construction would not be available in the said suit of specific performance. Thus, the suit for specific performance would not be an appropriate remedy if the prayer clauses are seen especially prayer (b) of the plaint. 23.3 With regard to the issue of suit for cancellation of collaboration agreements, it is opined that any such suit would not be alternate efficacious remedy if the prayer clauses are seen especially prayer (b) of the plaint.
24. Thus, in light of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in law. Hence, issue no.6 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1.
Issue no.7
25. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.7 as under:-
7. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(f) and (i) of Specific Relief Act? OPD-1
26. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 1. Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act states that an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court.
In view of the finding of this court in issue no.5, as stated CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 15/20 above, it is amply clear that the plaintiffs have come with unclean hands before this court and thus, their conduct disentitle them from getting any relief of injunction as prayed for. Hence, this suit is liable to be dismissed because of the import of law as given in Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act. 26.1 Further, Section 41(f) of the Specific Relief Act states that an injunction cannot be granted because it is unclear as to whether an act would be nuisance or not. It is the opinion of this court that this Section 41(f) of the Specific Relief Act does not apply to the instant case because any act of unauthorized construction in the future would be definitely a nuisance. Thus, the said suit is not barred by virtue of said Section 41(f) of the Specific Relief Act.
27. Thus, in light of the abovesaid discussions, the said suit is barred by Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, but is not barred by Section 41(f) of the Specific Relief Act. Hence, issue no.7 is decided in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiffs.
Issue no.2
28. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.2 as under:-
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
29. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiffs. The suit property is already booked for demolition vide order dated CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 16/20 07.11.2017 and 13.12.2018 for unauthorized construction in the shape of basement to fourth floor by the defendant no.2/SDMC. The requisite demolition orders have also been passed vide orders dated 15.11.2017 and 21.02.2018.
29.1 Thus, it is the opinion of the court that because the suit property is already booked for demolition, there is no need to pass any court orders for demolition thereof. Any such court order would be completely unnecessary and not required. The defendant no.2 already has taken adequate steps for dealing with the unauthorized construction as per the provisions of the DMC Act and any further direction to the defendant no.2 would be unwarranted. There is already a challenge to the said orders of demolition by defendant no.1. The law ought to take its own proper course. The plaintiffs should wait for the final outcome of the proceedings under the DMC Act and thereafter take a proper course as per law by filing appropriate proceedings, if required. At this stage, there is no need of any mandatory injunction as prayed for.
30. Hence, the issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issue no.3
31. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.3 as under:-
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 17/20
32. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiffs. In the present case, because the property is already booked for demolition regarding the unauthorized construction, as discussed above, a relief of permanent injunction could have been passed for restraining further unauthorized construction in the future, but in view of the findings given in issue nos. 4, 5 and 7, the facts of the instant case do not require any indulgence from this court. The fact that the suit ought to be dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties, approaching the court with unclean hands, and suit being barred under the Specific Relief Act, no relief of permanent injunction can be granted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence, the issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issue no.8
33. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.8 as under:-
8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD-1
34. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 1 It is the allegation of the defendant no.1 that the valuation of the suit is wrong and that no proper court fee has been paid. However, the perusal of checklist with the plaint shows that separate valuation has been done for the relief of mandatory injunction i.e. Rs.130/- and separate valuation have been done for the relief of permanent injunction i.e. Rs.130/-. Court fee has been paid @ Rs.13/- for each of these reliefs. The same has also CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 18/20 been reiterated in para 16 of the plaint. Thus, it appears that adequate court fee has been paid and the suit has been properly valued. The burden was on the defendant no.1 to prove otherwise, but the same has not been done. Thus, the issue no.8 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1.
Issue no.9
35. Now, I shall deal with the issue no.9 as under:-
9. Whether no cause of action survives against defendant no.2? OPD-2
36. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 2. It is to be noted that the defendant no.2 has already taken adequate steps to deal with the unauthorized construction in the suit property, as discussed above. Any further direction to the defendant no.2 would be wholly unnecessary and unwarranted. The defendant no.2 has taken all measures as per the provisions of the DMC Act in regard to the present case. Thus, in light of the above discussion, it is amply clear that there is no subsisting cause of action against the defendant no.2. Any further direction would completely be unwarranted. Hence, the issue no.9 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant no.2.
Issue no.10
10. Relief.
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 19/2037. In view of the abovesaid discussion, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issues no.2 and 3 are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues no.4, 5 and 7 are decided in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiffs.
Issues no.6 and 8 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1.
Issue no.9 is decided in favour of the defendant no.2 and against the plaintiffs.
Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
38. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
39. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (Santosh Kumar Singh)
on 12.05.2023 SCJ-cum-RC (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 122/18 Manoj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s PRS Homespaces Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 20/20