Delhi District Court
Vandita vs Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj on 6 January, 2024
Suit No. 16060/16 Page 1 of 23
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-03:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 16060/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-001266-2016
In the matter of :
1. Smt. Vandita
W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj
R/o 1665-M/1, Near Najafgarh Police Station,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
2. Baby Tannu
D/o Smt. Vandita
R/o 1665-M/1, Near Najafgarh Police Station,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
Minor through her mother and natural Guardian Smt. Vandita
....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Bhagirath Lal Bhardwaj
2. Lalita W/o Sushant @ Urmil Sharma
3. Sushant @ Urmil Sharma (abated)
Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors.
Suit No. 16060/16 Page 2 of 23
S/o Sh. D.D. Sharma
4. Prem Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Bhagirath Lal Bhardwaj,
All R/o 1665-L,
Near Najafgarh Police Station,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
5. Tirangelata W/o Sh. Sanjay Mishra
6. Sanjay Mishra
S/o Not Known
Both R/o H. No. 1665-M/1,
Near Najafgarh Police Station,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 20.01.2016
Final Arguments Heard on : 03.01.2024
Date of Judgment : 06.01.2024
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT :
Brief Background of the Litigation
1. Present suit was initially filed by the Plaintiff in the capacity of an indigent person before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for permanent and mandatory injunction of property bearing no. 1665 Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 3 of 23 M/1, Near Najafgarh Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 including the back courtyard (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') in favour of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. Thereafter, the present suit was transferred to the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.01.2016.
Plaint
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint are reproduced here as under:
(i) It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff no. 2 is the minor daughter of the Plaintiff no. 1, born out of the wedlock of the Plaintiff no. 1 with Defendant no. 1 and Plaintiff no. 2 herein is being represented through her natural guardian Smt. Vandita who is Plaintiff no. 1 herein. It is further submitted that Defendant no. 1 is the husband of Plaintiff no. 1 and father of Plaintiff no. 2. It is also submitted that Plaintiff no. 1 lives with her daughter Plaintiff no. 2 in the aforementioned suit property. The in-laws of Plaintiff no. 1 are arrayed as Defendants no. 2 to 6.
(ii) It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff no. 1 got married to Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 4 of 23
Defendant no. 1 on 20.11.2000 and the Plaintiff no. 2 was born out of the wedlock on 24.08.2001. It is alleged that the Defendants had pressurized the Plaintiff no. 1 and subjected her to extreme degree of harassment and cruelty to abort the girl child. It is further alleged that the Defendants had left the Plaintiff no. 1 at her father's place i.e. H. No. 48, Shiv Puri, Samaypur Badli, New Delhi sometime in the third week of February, 2001. It is averred that in the second week of August, 2001, Defendants had filed a divorce petition bearing H.M.A. petition no. 695/2001 for a decree of annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) and (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of pre-marital pregnancy. It is alleged that Defendant no. 3, who is the brother-in-law of Defendant no. 1 and husband of Defendant no. 2 subjected the Plaintiff to illegal ultrasound inspections and X-rays. It is averred that Defendant no. 3 claimed himself to be a MBBS doctor and was practicing in Allopathy Medicine System. It is further submitted that Plaintiff no. 1 along with her baby Plaintiff no. 2 came back to her matrimonial house in the first week of November, 2001. Aggrieved, Plaintiff no. 1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing suit no. 448/2001 on 15.12.2001. In Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 5 of 23 the reply to that suit, Defendants stated that the matrimonial home of Plaintiff no. 1 was H. No. 1665-M/1 and not H. No. 1665-L. It is further submitted that Defendant no. 1 herein had given a statement before the Ld. Civil Judge, Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, in the suit bearing no. 448/2001 that the Plaintiff no. 1 could co-habit with him at his residence bearing H. No. 1665-M/1. Defendant no. 1 also undertook not to disturb the possession of the Plaintiff no. 1 over the said house. Thereafter, the Plaintiff no. 1 had shifted to the house bearing no. 1665 M/1 in the last week of December, 2001 and since then, had been residing in the peaceful possession of the H. No. 1665-M/1, near Najafgarh Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. It is averred that the H. No. 1665-M/1 is a 60 year old structure consisting of four rooms, a back courtyard, a kitchen and a separate toilet and a bathroom. The area in possession of the Plaintiff no. 1 was two rooms, kitchen, toilet, bathroom and the back courtyard. The remaining two rooms were in the possession of Defendant no. 3 who operated a clinic over there.
(iii) It is averred that Plaintiff no. 1 had filed written statement to the HMA Petition No. 695/2001 and also filed an application under Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 6 of 23 Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance and other expenses. It is submitted that the said application was disposed off and Defendant no. 1 was directed to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the Plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and a cost of Rs. 6,000/- as litigation expenses. Thereafter, the said HMA Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.01.2005.
(iv) Plaintiff no. 1 had filed following criminal and civil proceedings against the Defendants herein:
(a) An application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on 22.04.2002 bearing case no. 320/2009 for maintenance;
(b) A criminal complaint case bearing CC No. 4/01/2006 under Section 200 Cr. P.C. for cognizance and trial of offence under Section 499 and 209 IPC against Defendants no. 1 and 3 herein;
(c) FIR bearing no. 216/06 on 18.03.2006 in P.S. Samaypur Badli, New Delhi against the Defendants herein for commission of offence under Section 406 and 498-A of the IPC and
(d) A suit for damages bearing CS(OS) No. 2488/2007 against Defendants no. 1 and 3 herein.
(v) It is alleged that mother-in-law late Smt. Kamlesh Rani of Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 7 of 23 Plaintiff no. 1 had filed a probate case bearing Case No. 63/2006 for the grant of probate of the Will dated 27.10.2005 of late Sh. B.L. Bhardwaj who was the father-in-law of Plaintiff no. 1 herein. It is further submitted that vide the said impugned Will, the suit property was bequeathed to late Smt. Kamlesh Rani. It is further submitted that Smt. Kamlesh Rani, during her lifetime, had further executed a Will dated 30.11.2007 bequeathing the suit property to Smt. Lalita, who is the Defendant no. 2 herein. It is further submitted that after the demise of Smt. Kamlesh Rani on 06.01.2008, Defendant no. 2 had served a legal notice dated 03.06.2008 on Plaintiff no. 1 seeking possession of the suit property which was duly replied by Plaintiff no. 1 vide reply dated 10.07.2008. It is stated that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition.
(vi) It is alleged that on 25.07.2010, at around 06:00 PM, the Defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 came to the suit property along with seven labourers and started demolishing the front two rooms of the suit property and the existing door of the back courtyard. It is further alleged that Defendants again came on 27.07.2010 at around 11:00 AM with four labourers and started demolishing the walls and ceiling Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 8 of 23 of the two rooms adjacent to the portion in possession of the Plaintiff no. 1. It is stated that Plaintiffs have no other accommodation and / or residence and that the Plaintiffs were authorized to live in the suit premises vide the statement given by Defendant no. 1 in the suit bearing CS No. 448/2001 which was recorded in the order dated 21.12.2001. Consequently, Plaintiffs had filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction qua the aforementioned suit property.
(vii) The following reliefs have been prayed for by the Plaintiffs:
"(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants directing them not to alter, demolish, break down and / or remove any part of the structure comprised in the property described as House No. 1665 M/1, Near Najafgarh Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi-
110043 including the back courtyard;
(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants, directing them not to interfere directly or through their agents, servants, employees, labourers etc. with the peaceful and continuous possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property described as two room, a kitchen, a bathroom and the back courtyard in the House No. Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 9 of 23 1665 M/1, Near Najafgarh Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi- 110043;
(c) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to repair the cracks in the walls and ceiling of the area in possession of the Plaintiffs (suit property) and to repair the back courtyard of the suit property;
(d) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants and
(e) Pass any other and / or further order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." Proceedings of the case
3. Initially, IPA bearing no. 20/2010 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the State through concerned SDM was impleaded as a party. Interim application under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed in the IPA 20/10 vide which status quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the suit property. Written Statement/Reply was filed on behalf of the Defendants. Separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the Defendants no. 1 and 2 which were allowed vide order dated Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 10 of 23 08.12.2010. Reply to IPA No. 20/2010 was filed by Defendants. Report was filed by the SDM with regard to the financial status of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was examined by the Court itself and was also cross examined by the Defendants on the point of indigency. Thereafter, arguments were heard on the said application on behalf of the parties. Vide separate order dated 03.03.2014, application to sue as an indigent person was allowed and the IPA was registered as a suit.
4. In the WS of Defendant no. 1, it is averred that the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed under Order VII R 11 of CPC as no cause of action arises against the Defendant. It is further submitted that Defendant no. 2 is the sole successor to the properties of her parents and neither Defendant no. 1 nor Plaintiffs have any right, title or interest over the properties of Defendant no. 2. It is alleged that Plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is further alleged that the statement of the Plaintiff no. 1 that she is staying at H. No. 1665-M/1, Near Najafgarh Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi is totally false. It is further alleged that the suit has not been properly valued and court fees has not been paid and therefore, is liable to be dismissed. It is Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 11 of 23 further submitted that the Plaintiff no. 1 is not an indigent person and is receiving the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is also submitted that Plaintiff no. 1 is an educated lady and employed and earning more than Rs. 20,000/- per month.
5. In the 'Reply on Merits,' the Defendant no. 1 has refuted the allegations and averments of the Plaintiffs and contested the suit by stating that the Plaintiff was occupying only one room and common kitchen, bathroom, toilet but by manipulation, succeeded in illegally occupying the kitchen, bathroom, toilet for her own use. It is further averred that the suit property is not the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff because the same was the immovable property belonging to the parents of Defendants no. 1 and 2 and the same were bequeathed to Defendant no. 2 and now, Defendant no. 2 is the absolute owner of the property. It was further averred that the suit property was in dilapidated condition since more than 10 years and needed repair and the Plaintiff started residing in the said property with full knowledge and despite request of parents of Defendant no. 2, the Plaintiff did not allow the mason and labourer to perform the repair work.
6. Written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendants no. 2 to Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 12 of 23 6 wherein they have relied upon the averments of the Defendant no. 1 in his WS and reiterated the same.
7. Replication was filed to the WS of Defendant no. 1 and Defendants no. 2 to 6 wherein the Plaintiffs have reiterated the averments of the plaint and denied the averments of the Defendant no. 1 and Defendants no. 2 to 6 in the written statement.
8. Plaintiff had admitted one document which was marked as Ex. D-1 and Defendant had admitted four documents of the Plaintiff which were marked as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4. Accordingly, admission-denial of documents was concluded. Thereafter, on 05.08.2014, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
(a) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
(b) Whether the Plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from this Court by filing of the suit against the Defendants? (OPD)
(c) Whether the Plaintiffs are unauthorized occupants in the suit premises i.e. House No. 665-M/1, near Najafgarh Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi? (OPD)
(d) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 13 of 23
injunction, as prayed for? (OPP)
(e) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction, as prayed for? (OPP)
(f) Relief.
9. Thereafter, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the Defendants no. 2 to 6 was allowed and the delay in filing the written statement was condoned. Thereafter, the suit was registered bearing CS(OS) 3691/2014 and matter was proceeded for PE. Defendants had filed an application under Order VII R 11 of CPC which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2015. Thereafter, the present matter was transferred to the Court of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 04.01.2016.
10. An application under Order VII R 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the Defendant. Thereafter, an application under Order VII R 14 of CPC was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for taking additional documents on record along with list of witnesses and affidavit of evidence. The said application of the Plaintiffs was allowed subject to payment of cost vide order dated 04.07.2017. Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 14 of 23
11. On 20.07.2017, plaintiff/PW-1 Smt. Vandita Sharma had tendered her evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. certified copy of judgment dated 21.03.2011 passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court as Ex. P-1; Certified copy of examination-in-chief of Defendant no. 1 in M.N. 320/2009 as Ex. P-2; certified copy of cross- examination of Defendant no. 1 in M. No. 320/2009 as Ex. P-3; certified copy of order dated 21.03.2011 in M.N. 320/2009 as Ex. P-4; original photographs as Ex. PW-1 to Ex. PW-31; Ex. PW-32 mentioned in the evidence affidavit was de-exhibited; certified copy of judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 in suit no. 53/2009 as Ex. PW- 33 (colly) (running into 26 pages); certified copy of judgment dated 02.06.2016 passed in RCA No. 54759/16 as Ex. PW-34 (colly) (running into 12 pages) and certified copy of judgment dated 21.12.2015 in CS No. 55/2010 as Ex. PW-35 (colly) (running into 33 pages).
12. Thereafter, an application under Section 10 r/w 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of Defendants no. 2 and 3 for stay of proceedings in the present suit. Written synopsis were also filed on behalf of Defendants Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 15 of 23 no. 2 and 3. Aforesaid application under Section 10 of CPC moved on behalf of Defendants no. 2 and 3 was dismissed vide separate order dated 05.11.2018 and matter was adjourned for cross-examination of PW-1. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking permission to carry out repairs in H. No. 1665-M/1, Bhardwaj Bhawan, Near P.S. Najafgarh, New Delhi. Reply was duly filed to the said application. Thereafter, PW-1 Smt. Vandita Sharma was cross examined and discharged on 04.03.2020. No other witness was examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs and PE was closed vide separate statement of the Plaintiff. Matter was proceeded for Defendant's evidence. On the even date i.e. on 04.03.2020, application of the Plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC was also allowed being unopposed for carrying out repairs.
13. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 of CPC was moved on behalf of Defendant no. 2 seeking permission to carry out the repair work in the portion of H. No. 1665-M/1, P.S. Najafgarh which was allowed vide order dated 26.11.2021 and Defendant no. 2 was allowed to carry out the necessary repair work in the aforesaid portion including its roof without making structural changes and subject to the Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 16 of 23 conditions or orders passed by any Court of law or any competent civil authority.
14. On 08.03.2022, DW-1 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
(a) Ex. DW1/A i.e. only one front page of certified copy of case under Section D.V. Act;
(b) Ex. DW1/B (4 pages) i.e. 8 photographs of the suit property;
(c) Ex. DW1/C i.e. publication of the disownment in the newspaper;
(d) Mark A i.e. rent agreement of Defendant no. 1;
(e) Ex. DW1/E i.e. medical record of Defendant no. 2 and
(f) Ex. DW1/F i.e. BSES electricity bill dated 13.12.2013.
15. Thereafter, it was submitted by the parties that they would like to settle the matter being a family dispute and also wished to clarify the exact portion of possession by way of preparing the mutually agreeable site plan. The site plan was filed by the parties, however, settlement could not be arrived at.
16. Parties have, thereafter, addressed arguments on the point of Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 17 of 23 pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Thereafter, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for Defendants that Defendant no. 3 had expired and death certificate of Defendant no. 3 was also placed on judicial record. However, no application was filed for impleading the LRs of Defendant no. 3, therefore, suit stands abated qua Defendant no. 3.
A local commissioner was appointed vide order dated 29.08.2023 for filing the report qua the status of the suit property and the construction being carried out as alleged by the Defendants. Subsequently, report was filed by the LC. Same was perused and accordingly, the application of the Defendant under Section 151 of CPC was disposed off vide order dated 13.09.2023.
17. Several opportunities were granted to conclude DE, however, none had appeared despite opportunities and DE was closed vide order dated 30.10.2023 and matter was proceeded for final arguments. Contentions of the parties
18. I have heard the final arguments and perused the record. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has argued that the Plaintiff has been able to establish her case on a preponderance of probabilities by establishing settled possession and therefore, is entitled for a decree of the suit. Ld. Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 18 of 23 Counsel for Defendants submitted at bar that the Defendants have no objection if the prayer of permanent injunction was granted limited to the suit property described as two rooms kitchen, bathroom and back courtyard and that the Defendants would not dispossess the Plaintiffs without due process of law.
Findings
19. I have perused the record and heard the parties. Issues (a), (b) and (c) The Defendants did not lead any evidence and the onus to prove these issues was placed upon them. The cross-examination of DW-1 was deferred, however, he was not produced for the purpose of cross- examination and did not enter the witness box thereafter despite opportunities given to the Defendants to lead DE. Therefore, his affidavit cannot be read into evidence. The issues are therefore, decided against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiffs. Issues (d) and (e) It is to be kept in mind that the title, absolute or better, was not in issue in the present case. The Plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against the Defendants to Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 19 of 23
(a) restrain them from altering, demolishing, removing any part of the structure of the suit property;
(b) restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property.
The Plaintiffs have been able to establish that they entered into the possession of the suit property in the year 2001. The said fact is admitted even during the cross-examination of PW-1, wherein a suggestion was given to PW-1 Smt. Vandita Sharma that "it is correct that I along with my daughter having peaceful possession in H. No. 1665 M/1 since last week of December 2001 from my side." Therefore, it is established that the Plaintiffs have been residing in the suit property and having the settled possession thereof since December 2001. I find that the Plaintiffs have also been able to prove their averments that the Defendants threatened to forcibly dispossess the Plaintiffs from the suit property. The statement of the PW-1 in para 29 of her affidavit-in-chief has not been shaken in the cross-examination. No specific suggestion has been given to the Plaintiffs that the Defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 did not come at the suit property on 25.07.2010 and started to demolish the front two rooms of the suit Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 20 of 23 property and exit door of the back courtyard. As the witness was never challenged on this statement, the same stands proved. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have been able to establish on a preponderance of probabilities her settled possession and the reasonable apprehension and threat of dispossession emanating from the Defendants.
20. The question arises to the nature of relief to be granted to the Plaintiffs. As the title over the suit property was never in question in the present suit, the Plaintiffs cannot be granted a permanent injunction that would restrain the Defendants from evicting the Plaintiffs from the suit property in accordance and after following the due process of law. However, as the Plaintiffs have been able to establish their settled possession, the Defendants have no right to forcibly evict or dispossess the Plaintiffs without adopting the due process of law. Moreover, as the Plaintiffs have been residing in the suit property for substantial period of time, the Defendants cannot alter, demolish or change any part of the structure without the consent of the Plaintiffs as long as the Plaintiffs reside in the said suit property.
21. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction, for directing the Defendants to repair the cracks in the Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 21 of 23 walls and ceiling of the area in possession of the Plaintiffs and also to repair the back courtyard of the suit property. The relief, being vaguely worded and without any specifics, cannot be decreed. Moreover, it has been admitted during cross-examination of PW-1 that she had received an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for undertaking repair work in the DV Act case decided by the Ld. M.M., Dwarka Courts. A relief of mandatory injunction, being discretionary, has to be granted sparingly. Moreover, notice can also be taken of the fact that the present suit was filed in the year 2010 and it is highly probable that as much water has flown, the circumstances of the property are likely to have been much changed. No specific evidence was also led with regard to the repairs sought to be procured by way of the present suit.
22. Though, at the time of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Defendants did not oppose the grant of permanent injunction as prayed for, it may be noticed that an objection was taken regarding the absence of a site plan filed by the Plaintiffs and non compliance of the provisions of Order VII R 3 of CPC. In this regard, it may be stated that the non compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto render the suit bad in law. There was no serious dispute during the Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 22 of 23 proceedings with regard to the identity of the suit property. It may also be stated that due to various applications moved by the Defendants, a Local Commissioner was appointed to undertake a visit to the suit property as disputes were raised regarding alleged construction of permanent character being carried out by the Plaintiffs without delving into the report in detail, it may be said that the Ld. LC prepared a site plan which is hereby, for the purpose of convenience and identification exhibited as Ex. L-1 in the judicial file by this Court. The Ld. LC has very ably shown and marked the portion in red which is stated to be in the possession of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the lack of a site plan filed by the Plaintiff would be of no consequence.
It is pertinent to note that the report of the Ld. LC was supplied to all the parties and no objection was filed with respect to the same.
Issues (d) and (e) are decided accordingly.
Relief
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed in the following terms:
(a) A decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit property Smt. Vandita and Anr. Vs. Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj and Ors. Suit No. 16060/16 Page 23 of 23
shown in red portion of site plan Ex. L-1, otherwise than in accordance with due process of law and from obstructing the lawful enjoyment of the suit property by the Plaintiffs while they remain in possession;
(b) A decree of permanent injunction is passed against the Defendants from entering the suit property shown in red portion of site plan Ex. L-1 without the consent of the Plaintiffs and
(c) A decree of permanent injunction is passed against the Defendants from altering, demolishing or in any other way changing the structure of the suit property shown in red portion of site plan Ex. L-1 without the consent of the Plaintiffs.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the Plaintiffs.
25. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by DIVYANG THAKUR
DIVYANG Date:
THAKUR 2024.01.06
16:21:29
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur)
On 06.01.2024 ADJ-03/South West
Dwarka / New Delhi