Delhi High Court - Orders
Geeta Tandon vs Dr Sunil Gomber & Ors on 14 July, 2022
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2036/2012
GEETA TANDON ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. N.K. Kantawala, Ms. Ikshita
Parihar and Mr. Amaya M. Nair,
Advocates.
versus
DR SUNIL GOMBER & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imraan
Khan and Ms. Pooja Bansal, Advs.
for D1.
Mr.Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 14.07.2022 IA No.10725/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of defendant No.2)
1. It is submitted that property bearing No. F-3, Vijay Nagar, Delhi, is the subject matter of the present suit for partition. It is claimed that in the garb of carrying repairs and renovation, defendant No.1 has broken the common wall on the ground floor between the suit property and the house of defendants thereby damaging the entire building and the foundation. Prayer is made that the defendant No.1 be restrained from carrying out any illegal repairs, renovation, which is damaging the suit property, in order to preserve the suit property.
2. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that he has instructions to state that no removal of connecting wall has been done and only the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:16.07.2022 16:10:11 requisite repair had been carried out to ensure that there is no damage caused to the suit property. It is further submitted that no new construction has been carried out except some repair work in his property by the defendant no.1. Learned counsel for defendant no.1 further submits that defendant no.1 does not intend to carry out any removal of wall or repair which damages the subject property. It is however clarified by learned counsel for defendant no.1 that one door had been installed in the common wall some 12 years back and the same only has been removed and no fresh construction/demolition has been carried out in the suit property.
3. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 has disputed the same and has claimed that damage has been caused to the intervening wall.
4. In view of submissions made, the defendant No.1 is restrained from removing the intervening wall or from causing any damage to the subject property.
5. Application is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CS(OS) 2036/2012 Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that he has already settled the issue of payment of the fees to the learned Local Commissioner and the order dated 29.03.2022 stands complied with.
List on 19.07.2022 for final hearing at the end of the Board.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
JULY 14, 2022 neelam Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:16.07.2022 16:10:11