Delhi District Court
Suit No. 1235/17 vs Smt. Swaroop Rani on 24 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF NEHA MITTAL: CIVIL JUDGE10, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS : DELHI
Suit No. 1235/17
In reference:
Sh. Rajesh Gautam,
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Gautam,
R/o H.No. 854, Mohalla Mantola,
Pahar Ganj, New Delhi
...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1 Smt. Swaroop Rani
W/o Sh. Shashi Pal;
2. Sh. Manav Saini,
S/o Sh. Shashi Pal,
3. Smt. Shabnam Saini,
W/o Sh. Manav Saini,
4. Sh. Manoj Saini,
S/o Sh. Shashi Pal,
5. Smt. Reema Saini,
W/o Sh. Manoj Saini,
All R/o H.No. 857, Mohalla Mantola,
Pahar Ganj, New Delhi110 055.
........... Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.04.2017
Date of reservation of Judgment : 15.05.2019
Date of Judgment : 24.05.2019
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
CS No. 1235/17 Rajesh Gautam Vs. Swaroop Rani Page No. 1 of 6
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned suit. This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
PLAINT:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendants are the neighbours of the plaintiff and are residents of adjacent property. It is averred that the properties of both the parties are situated in Katra (closed street with various houses) and that the property of the plaintiff is two side opened (one entrance of the property of plaintiff is from the main road and second entrance from the Katra). It is further averred that the defendants have illegally parked their scooter in front of the gate of the plaintiff and also put their garbage in front of the gate of the plaintiff thereby causing obstruction to the plaintiff and his family. It is further averred that the despite objections by the plaintiff regarding the aforesaid acts, defendants instead of heeding to the request started quarreling with the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff not to lodge any complaint against them. It is further averred that the plaintiff being aggrieved lodged a complaint vide DD No. 35B dated 21.01.2017 but no action was taken by the police.
3. It is further averred that on 21.01.2017, some old part of the balcony of the property of the defendants fell on the portion of the property of the plaintiff and caused damage to the air cooler of the plaintiff which was installed at the first floor. It is further averred that due to damage the air cooler hanged and the defendants did not allow the plaintiff to open said gate and removed the hanged air cooler, which may fall any time and harm anyone. It is further averred that the plaintiff lodged a complaint with Police Station Pahar Ganj, New Delhi vide DD No. 64B, dated 27.01.2017 but no action was taken by the police. It is further averred that the aforesaid illegal acts of the defendants are continuing and causing nuisance and harm to the plaintiff and his family and therefore the present suit has been filed.
CS No. 1235/17 Rajesh Gautam Vs. Swaroop Rani Page No. 2 of 6 Relief:
A. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their heirs, successors, accociates, assignee, attorney(s), servants etc. from illegally parking their vehicles/scooters in front of the gate of the suit property i.e. property no.854, Mohalla Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is more specifically shown in Green colour in the site plan annexed herewith.
B. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their heirs, successors, associates, assignee, attorney(s), servants etc. from illegally putting the garbage/waste in front of the gate of the suit property i.e. property no. 854, Mohalla Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is more specifically shown in Green colour in the site plan annexed herewith.
C. Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
D. Any other or further order(s), which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice.
4. Summons were issued to the defendants and were duly served. Written Statement alongwith counter claim was filed on behalf of defendants. In their Written Statement, the defendants have stated that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff and is owned by the defendants and that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff only to grab the suit property.
5. It is further averred that the open space is not common and belongs to the defendants. It is further averred that there was a court yard in which defendants have 50% CS No. 1235/17 Rajesh Gautam Vs. Swaroop Rani Page No. 3 of 6 share and the rest 50% belongs to some Sampuran Inn.
6. It is further averred that the plaintiff is running a restaurant and the plaintiff and his servants put their waste material as well as vehicle in front of the house of the defendants thereby obstructing free access of the defendants to their property. It is further averred that the suit property is the ancestral property of the defendants. It is further averred that plaintiff has threatened the defendants and even filed the case u/s 107/150 Cr.PC against the defendants.
7. It is further averred that the plaintiff has installed their cooler on the wall which can collapse at any moment. With the aforesaid averments, the defendants claim the relief of injunction thereby directing the plaintiff to remove their belongings/articles/water cooler from the suit property and not to create any hindrance in the peaceful access of the defendants.
8. The following issues were framed vide order dated 09.02.2019: ISSUES:
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injuction as prayed for? OPP
2) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit in hand? OPD
9. Thereafter due to nonappearance the defendant no.3 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.07.2018 and remaining defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.09.2018.
EVIDENCE:
10. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as only one witness CS No. 1235/17 Rajesh Gautam Vs. Swaroop Rani Page No. 4 of 6 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and has relied upon the following documents:
(a) Ex.PW1/A i.e. site plan.
(b) Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/F i.e. photographs.
(c) Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H i.e. police complaints vide DD No.35B dated 21.01.2017 and DD No. 64B dated 27.01.2017.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
11. I have heard the exparte final arguments.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT: Issue No.1 The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff u/s 101 of Indian Evidence Act. All the averments made by the plaintiff have remained uncontroverted. The oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff is unrebutted. The photogrpahs and police complaint placed on record substantiate the averments of the plaintiff. Though the defendants have filed their Written Statement (WS) but they stopped appearing and did not even crossexamine the plaintiff's witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.2 The burden to prove this issue is on the defendants. However, no evidence has been led on their part to show that the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit. Mere bald assertions in the written statement are not sufficient to discharge the burden placed upon the defendants. Hence this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS No. 1235/17 Rajesh Gautam Vs. Swaroop Rani Page No. 5 of 6
12. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the following relief is being given to the plaintiff:
A. A decree of Permanent Injunction is being passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their heirs, successors, associates, assignee, attorney(s), servants etc. from illegally parking their vehicles/scooters in front of the gate of the suit property i.e. property no.854, Mohalla Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is more specifically shown in Green colour in the site plan annexed herewith.
B. A decree of Permanent Injunction is being passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their heirs, successors, associates, assignee, attorney(s), servants etc. from illegally putting the garbage/waste in front of the gate of the suit property i.e. property no. 854, Mohalla Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is more specifically shown in Green colour in the site plan annexed herewith.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA MITTAL
Court on 24.05.2019 MITTAL Date: 2019.05.24
16:17:15 +0530
(Neha Mittal)
Civil Judge10 (Central)
THC/Delhi/24.05.2019
CS No. 1235/17 Rajesh Gautam Vs. Swaroop Rani Page No. 6 of 6