(citation)

1. Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs &

Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594.
The position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to
immovable property, is as under:

(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not
have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or
without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the
plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of
possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's
lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for
an injunction simpliciter.
A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent
defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a
third party over it, is made out or shown.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with
possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and
substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with
reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure
possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property,
as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it
will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction,
unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue
regarding title (either specific or implied). Where the averments
regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue
relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a
finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where
there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves
complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will
relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for
declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere
injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and
appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if
the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may
decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction.
But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of
title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having
clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven
to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for
declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully
makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court
should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will
enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a
more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of
the case.
Annaimuthu The var v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202, referred to
(Paras 21, 14, 13, 15 and 16) .

2. Anwar P.V. v P.K. Bashir & Ors., AIR 2015 SC 180 and
requested to file the certificates under Section 65B of Evidence Act,
1872, if deemed appropriate.
3. Rame Gowda (D) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by
LRs & Anr, AIR 2004 SC 4609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the settled possession of a trespasser is also to
be protected against the original owner and the trespasser
cannot be left to the mercy of the original owner. Possessory title
good against all the world but the rightful owner
4. J.M. Bishwas v N.K. Bhattacharjee & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC
68. Injunction as to the election- not to restrain in any way which
will be in contravention to the democratic functioning of the state.
5. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v Machado Brothers &
Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 168.

6. S.R. Batra v Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 and Neha

Jain & Anr. v G.D. Jain & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Del
10810. Pushpa v Kanta Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
10980
7. Sudhanshu M. Pvt. Ltd. v BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., 125
(2005) DLT 647 and Sarjiwan Singh v Delhi Vidyut Board,
110 (2004) DLT 633.
8. Joseph Severance & Ors. v Benny Mathew & Ors., (2005)
7 SCC 667.
 Sant Lal Jain v Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332, Joseph
Severance & Ors. v Benny Mathew & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC
667 and Sachin and Anr. v Jhabbu Lal and Anr., AIR 2017
Delhi 1
9. Jagdish Prasad v Jyoti Prasad, 1975 ILR (Delhi) 841.
Court fees- Partition-
10. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v Randhir Singh & Ors.,
(2010) 12 SCC 12.
11. Sreenath v Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827
12. M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v M/s Basic
Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 577
13. Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. v Jasbir Singh Chadha
(HUF) & Anr., 183 (2011) DLT 402 for rent deed.
14. Nibro Limited v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 41 (1990)
DLT 633 for board resolution and Navigators Logistics Ltd. v
Kashif Qureshi & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11321
15. B.L. Kantroo v BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 154 (2008)
Delhi Law Times 56 (DB) for theft electricity disconnection.
16. Jiwan Dass Rawal v Narain Dass & Ors., AIR 1981 Del
291.
17. Maya Devi v Lalta Prasad, 2014 AIR SCW 1412.
18. State Bank of India v Netai Ch. Porel, AIR 1982 Calcutta
92 and Venugopal Loya & Ors. Vijayalakshmi Bung & Anr.,
1991 71 CompCas 393 AP for locker.
19. Sarup Singh v Daryodhan Singh, AIR 1972 Delhi 142.
20. Narayan Nayak v State Bank of India & Ors., (2002) III
LLJ 1013 Cal for missing.
21. Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh v Union of India & Ors.,
103 (2003) DLT 654, the defendant had no right to transfer
the said property in the name of the plaintiff.
…. and Order no. F.234(7)/UD/BSUP/2012/17270- 17281
dated 20.06.2013, issued by the Project Officer, Department
of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi.
22. Rampratap Brijmobandas v Gowrishankar Kashirarm AIR
1924 Bom 109, Bejoy Chand Mahatap Bahadur v
Amutya Charan Mitra AIR 1914 Cal 895
23. In WP (Crl) No. 103/2013, Dr. Meena Chaudhary v BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 25.06.2013, VI (2013) SLT 203 and in
Abhimanyu Mazumdar v Superintending Engineer & Anr.,
AIR 2011 Calcutta 64 for providing new electricity connection.
24. Afcons infrastructure & Ors. v Cherian Verkay
Construction & Ors., 2010 (8) SCC 24. Compulsory
reference to the mediation.
25. Prithipal Singh (Dead) through LRs v. Satpal Singh, 2010
(2) SCC 15 and Bhim Sen Batra v Shreyans Buildwell
Pvt. Ltd., 215 (2) RCR (Rent) 88.
26. Karuppaswamy & Ors. v C. Ramamurthy, AIR 1993 SC
2324, for bank
27. Hope Plantations Limited v Taluk Land Board, Peemande
& Anr., 1999 (2) Civil Court Cases 188 (SC) for 'issue
estoppel' and 'res judicata',
28. T. Arivandandam v T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467
and Malvika Madan Sehgal & Anr. v M.M. Sehgal Limited &
Ors., 65 (1997) DLT 381.
29. Capt. Atul Kumar Singh v Ms. Jalveen Rosha, AIR 2000
Del 38 and Vasu Tech Ltd. v Ratna Commercial
Enterprises Ltd., AIR 2008 Delhi 122.
30. Mohd. Jamil & Ors. v Mirajuddin 231 (2016) DLT 736 to
seek declaration and partition.
31. Surinder Kaur & Ors. v Pritam Singh & Ors., 154 (2008)
DLT 598 for mediation settlement.
32. Sant Lal Jain v Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332
33. Vishal N. Kalsaria v Bank of India, (2016) 3 SCC 764
34. Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh v Union of India & Ors.
103 (2003) DLT 654, the defendant had no right to transfer
the said property in the name of the plaintiff.
35. In Rajender Kumar Sharma v Leela Wati & Ors., 155
(2008) DLT 383 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it
is held that :-
“It is also settled law that when original tenant dies,
the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants
and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of
all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord
to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant,
whether they are living in the property or not. It is
sufficient for the landlord to implead only those
persons who are living in the property, as party.
There may be a case where landlord is not aware of
all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and
impleading only those LRs who are in occupation of
the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing
Eviction Petition. An eviction petition against one of
the joint tenants is an Eviction Petition against all
the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by
order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one
tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different
legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this
count must fail.”
36. In Maria Margarida Fernandes v Erasmo Jack De
Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 passed the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a list of
particulars which are to be pleaded in the plaint, by a plaintiff
seeking protection of his possession. The exact observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment, is
reproduced below:-
“69. The person averring a right to continue in
possession shall, as far as possible, give a
detailed particularised specific pleading along
with documents to support his claim and
details of subsequent conduct which establish
his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims
possession must give all such details as
enumerated hereunder. They are only
illustrative and not exhaustive:
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the
property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents;
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to
possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession–whether he
purchased the property or inherited or got the
same in gift or by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is
the consideration; if he has taken it on rent,
how much is the rent, licence fee or lease
amount;
(h) If taken on rent, licence fee or lease–then
insist on rent deed, licence deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in
possession/occupation or otherwise living with
him, in what capacity; as family members,
friends or servants, etc,;
(j) subsequent conduct i.e. any event
which might have extinguished his
 entitlement to possession or caused shift
therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver
possession but continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the court must
insist on documentary proof in support of the
pleadings. All those documents would be
relevant which come into existence after the
transfer of title or possession or the
encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with
the civil suits, at the threshold, the court must
carefully and critically examine the pleadings
and documents.”
36. In S.M. Asif v Virender Kumar Bajaj, CA Nos.6106-6108 of
2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
38. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. v Chander
Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1756, Yudhishter v Ashok Kumar, AIR
1987 SC 558, Neelam and Anr. V Sada Ram and Ors.,
(2013) 197 DLT (CN) 52 and Sarvesh Kumar v Dalel
Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5735. (permissive user)
38 (a) Ramesh Kumar Handoo v Binay Kumar Basu, (2007)
ILR 10 Delhi 79.
39. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made certain
observations in Vasu Tech Limited v Ratna Commercial
Enterprises Limited, AIR 2008 Delhi 122 and Capt. Atul
Kumar Singh v Ms. Jalveen Rosha, AIR 2000 Del 38.
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v
Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 117.
41. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hussain & Ors. v Union of India (UOI) & Ors., AIR 2017 SC
1362, the directions of the National Court Management System
Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions
of the State Court Management System Committee of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, this suit has to be disposed off, as
expeditiously as possible and latest by 31.12.2018
42. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shiv Kumar v Sumit Gulati,
RSA No.417/2015, decided on 04.12.2015 and Bhupender Jit
Singh v Sonu Kumar, C.R.P. 176/2017 decided by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.10.2017, 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 11061 and Santosh Kumar v Col. Satsangi's
Kiran Memorial Aipeccs Educational Complex and Anr, RSA
No.148/2018, decided on 12.10.2018, such power is to be
exercised by a Civil Court when inter se the parties, there is no
triable issue, to be decided by a Civil Court.
43. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kundan Singh v State, I
(2016) CCR 1 (DB) (Del.)
44. As per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Rafi Ahmed Khan v Jalaludin, RSA No.210/2010 and Order
dated 13.09.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in Rafi Ahmed Khan v Jalaludin, Review Petition no.225/2011,
village Jafrabad has not been notified under the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958.
45. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Prabhu Dayal & Anr. v
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors., 147 (2008) DLT 237.
46. Dr. Meena Chaudhary v BSES Rajdhani Power Limited &
Ors., WP (Crl) No. 103/2013, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 25.06.2013 and Abhimanyu Majumdar v
Superintending Engineer and Anr., AIR 2011 Calcutta
64.
47. Santosh Devi Soni v Chand Kiran, JT 2000 (3) SC 397 and
Sanjay Chug v O.P. Ahuja & Anr., 207 (2014) DLT 271.
48. Kuljeet Kaur & Anr. v Jaspal Kaur & Anr., RSA
No.226/2015 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on
24.08.2017.
49. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Central Bank of India v Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095,
the grant of pendente- lite and future interest is a subject matter
of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by
the agreement between the parties. Keeping in view the interest
being granted by banks in case of term deposits, the plaintiff
has been granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of
9% per annum.
50. Reference is craved to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC, 1908 and the law laid down in Revajeetu Builders &
Developers v Narayanswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84.
51. Reference is craved to the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Swaran & Anr. v Indu Wahi & Ors., 2017
SCC OnLine Del 1050, where in the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has observed that Courts should not entertain casual pleas
regarding 'mistakes by previous Advocates of parties'.
52. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in Shiv Kumar v Sumit Gulati, (2015) 225 DLT 591, such
power is to be exercised by a Civil Court when inter se the
parties, there is no triable issue, to be decided by a Civil
Court.
53. Laxmi Sapalthi v Kashiamma, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 373.
inj. suit abated
54. Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) Sh. Yeshvir Singh Tomar v Dr. O.P. Kohli
and Ors., (2015) 222 DLT 285, wherein the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi has denied reliefs of declaration of ownership
and consequential possession, to the plaintiff, sought on the
basis of agreement to sell, GPA etc. dated 06.11.2006, on the
ground that the documents of the plaintiff were not registered as
per the amendments brought in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 w.e.f. 24.09.2001
55. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Central Bank of India v Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095,
the grant of pendente- lite and future interest is a subject matter
of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the
agreement between the parties. Keeping in view the interest
being granted by banks in case of term deposits, the plaintiff
has been granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of
9% per annum.
56. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v Assistant Charity
Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 can be exercised at any time before
conclusion of trial of a suit
57. Prabhakara Adiga v Gowri, (2017) 4 SCC 97.
58. Laxmi Sapalthi v Kashiamma, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 373.
59. Om Prakash & Anr. v Birbal Singh & Anr., 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 13275.
60. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in paragraph 10 of the
judgment in Rajendra Motwani & Anr. v MCD & Ors., RSA
No.243/2017, decided on 16.10.2017, 2017 (4) CLJ 432
Del, Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and
Section 91 as well as Order I Rule 8 of CPC, 1908. In
paragraph 10 of the judgment in Rajendra Motwani & Anr. v
MCD & Ors., 2017 (4) CLJ 432 Del, the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi, has observed as under:-
“10. The second reason for rejecting the
argument urged on behalf of the
appellants/plaintiffs is that an illegal
construction in itself does not give any legal
right to a neighbor. An illegal construction
always no doubt given locus standi to the local
municipal authorities to seek removal of the
illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor
only arises if the legal rights of light and air or
 any other legal right is affected by virtue of the
illegal construction of the neighbor...”

61. M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v M/s

Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors., 2016 (229) DLT 744. To
file affidavit as per Order XXI Rule 41(2) of CPC, 1908.
62. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v All India Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Executives Associations (Regd.) & Ors., (2006) 130
DLT 195 and the observations made by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co.
Ltd. v Union of India, 1995 (32) DRJ 733.
63. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Harish Sharma v Raj
Kumar, (2014) 209 DLT 495.
64. Ponnuswami v Returning Officer, Air 1952 SC 64 and
Javed Rahat & Ors. v Bar Council of Delhi & Ors., (2006) 129
DLT 104 (DB).
65. N. Balakrishnan v M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123.
(condonation of delay in filing of appeal.)
66. Mehar Elahi v Verha Mal, (1996) 64 DLT 641.
67. Reference is craved to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Arvind Garg v Neeta Singhal, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4923. In
the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after
referring to the judgments in Kedar Nath v Ram Prakash,
76 (1998) DLT 755 and Gurdial Singh v Raj Kumar Aneja,
(2002) 2 SCC 445, has observed that in an application under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, the plaintiff should clearly
delineate the paragraphs of the plaint, which are proposed to be
amended.
68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sayed Muhammed Mashur
Kunhi Koya Thangal v Badagara Jumayath Palli
Dharas Committee & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 708, a plaintiff
can succeed only on the strength of his/her case and not on
the weakness found in the case of the defendant.
69. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai Gopal Goyal v Bishen
Dayal Goyal, 2007 (5) AD (Delhi) 690
70. In M.C. Aggarwal HUF v Sahara India & Ors., 183 (2011)
DLT 105 (damages/mesne profits).
71. Kuldeep Singh Pathania v Bikram Singh Jarya, (2017) 5
SCC 345, application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 is
dismissed.
72. The udgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Awdesh Chand Jauhari & Anr. v Sarika Jauhari & Anr., 2017
SCC OnLine Del 10694, the pendency of compromise talks
between the parties, cannot be accepted to be a ground for
non-filing of the written statement by the defendants
73. In view of the law laid down in Jai Gopal Goyal v Bishan
Dayal Goyal, 2007 (5) AD (Delhi) 690, it was the duty of the
defendants to diligently defend this suit.
74. Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DCM Ltd. v
R.K. Towers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 972 and
Rawal Singh v Kwality Stores, AIR 1986 Delhi 236 for
limitation of a suit.
75. Hemant Jain v Sidhharth Jaju, 2017 SCC OnLine Del
10898, after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gayatri v M. Girish, (2016) 14 SCC 142.
76. In view of the law laid down in Awdesh Chand Jauhari &
Anr. v Sarika Jauhari and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del
10694, the pendency of compromise talks between the parties,
cannot be accepted to be a valid ground for non-filing of the
written statement by the defendants.
77. Evangelical Church of India v North India Outreach
Society, 1997 (40) DRJ 250, B.K. Dutta v Smt. Nita Madan,
AIR 1984 Cal 228 and Manju Gupta v Daya Ram, 2017
SCC OnLine Del 7331.
78. T. Lakshmipathi v Nithyananda Reddy, 2003 AIR (SC)
2427, Shaha Ratansi Khimji v Proposed Khumbhar Sons
Hotel P. Ltd., 2014 AIR (SC) 2895 and Kondeti
Suryanarayan & Ors. v Pinninthi Seshagiri Rao, AIR 2000
SC 70
79. Satish Kumar Gupta v Shanti Swaroop Gupta, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 9651 and Renu v Champa Rani & Anr., 2018
SCC OnLine Del 10832, wherein it has been categorically held
that even if a person proves having made any contribution to the
price for purchase of an immovable property by another, then
such person does not have any right, title or interest in the
property and the only claim of such person is to sue the purchaser
for recovery of the purchase price contributed, with interest.
...Bhavna Khanna v Subir Tara Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 6978.
80. Bishan Chand v Ved Prakash (since deceased) through
LRs & Anr., RSA No. 131/2018, decided by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, on 14.09.2018.
81. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sharda v Kusum Gupta,
2018 SCC OnLine Del 11130, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has again observed that in a landlord-tenant suit, a Court
should not examine issues of title. The exact observation in the
said judgment is reproduced below:
“12. Though the title of the suit from which the
appeal arises was 'for recovery of possession'
but in law, a suit by a landlord for ejectment of
tenant is distinct from a suit for recovery of
possession of immovable property, on the basis
of prior possession or title, in which either prior
possession or title has to be established. On the
contrary, in a suit for ejectment by landlord
against tenant, the question of title to the
 property is not relevant. (See Jai Sujanti v
Sudarshan Chadha, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2860,
Precision Steels v Reeta Salwan, 205 (2013) DLT
695, Sanjay Singh v Corporate Warranties Pvt.
Ltd., (2013) 204 DLT 12, Ram Kumar v S.K.
Gulati, (2013) 203 DLT 588, Vansons Footwear
(P) Ltd. v USP Fashion Weaves (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 6998 and Gayatri Gupta v Bimla
Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine 10726) and the only
question to be determined is the existence of
relationship of landlord and tenant.”
82. Brij Jivan Lal & Anr. v Shiam Lal & Anr., AIR 1950 All 57
and Manglu Ram Dewangan v Surinder Singh, (2011) 12
SCC 773.
83. Anu v Suresh Verma and Ors., CS(OS) No.2546/2010,
decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on 12.07.2011,
Jagdish Pershad v Joti Pershad, 1975 ILR (Del) 841 and Rule 8,
Part C, Chapter 3 of the Instructions to Civil Courts in Delhi,
Volume I, High Court Rules and Orders.
84. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Ramakant Kaushik v Pawan Sharma, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 9474, Vinay Kumar v Bijay Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 9719 and Tirupati Alkalias Pvt. Ltd. v Vinod Trivedi,
2017 SCC OnLine Del 91181, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has severely criticized the practice of Advocates seeking
adjournments before the Trial Courts on the premise that their party
has filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
and termed the said practice to be 'contumacious'.
85. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v
Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480, a Court is required to be lenient in
condoning the delay in filing of the written statement by the
defendant.
86. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v
Kartick Das, 1994 (4) SCC 225.
87. The judgment in Meghmala & Ors. v G. Narasimha Reddy &
Ors., 2011 (3) SCC 006, has been read, as per the
observations made qua the said judgment, in the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Murti Devi & Anr. v NCT of
Delhi & Ors., RSA No.115/2018, decided on 21.08.2018,
2018 SCC OnLine Del 10938. (judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mandal Revenue Officer v Goundla
Venkaiah, (2010) 2 SCC 461, quoted with approval in the
recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Murti Devi & Anr. v NCT of Delhi & Ors., RSA No.115/2018,
decided on 21.08.2018, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 1093)
88. In accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court in Mandal
Revenue Officer v Goundla Venkaiah, (2010) 2 SCC 461 1,
this Court now has the duty to ensure that land grabbers are
encroachers are not granted reliefs, in the name of rule of law.
89. The Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Pushp Sharma & Anr. v D.B. Corp. Ltd. & Ors., FAO (OS)
No.92/2018, decided on 28.09.2018.
90. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
in Akil Ahmad v Abdul Hakim, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
10154, no comment has been made in this Order regarding the
claim of ownership made by the plaintiffs qua the suit property
and this Order has been passed by only examining whether or not,
the plaintiffs, are in settled possession of the suit property
91. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles qua
grant of an ex- parte ad-interim injunction.2 The said principles
1 The said judgment has been quoted with approval in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in Murti Devi & Anr. v NCT of Delhi & Ors., RSA No.115/2018, decided
on 21.08.2018, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10938.
2 The said judgment has been quoted with approval in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble
High   Court   of   Delhi   in   Pushp   Sharma   &   Anr.   v   D.B.   Corp.   Ltd.   &   Ors.,   FAO   (OS)
No.92/2018, decided on 28.09.2018. 
are reproduced below:-
“As a principle, ex parte injunction could
be granted only under exceptional
circumstances. The factors which should
weigh with the court in the grant of ex
parte injunction are:
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief
will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte
injunction would involve greater injustice
than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at
which the plaintiff first had notice of the
act complained so that the making of
improper order against a party in his
absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether
the plaintiff had acquiesced for
sometime and in such circumstances
it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party
applying for ex parte injunction to
show utmost good faith in making the
application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction
would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie
case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss would also be considered
by the court.”
92. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Link
Engineers (P) Ltd. v Asea Brown Boveri Limited & Ors.,
2007 SCC OnLine Del 625.
93. Nopany Investments Private Limited v Santokh Singh
(HUF), AIR 2008 SC 673, Jeevan Diesels and Electricals
Ltd. v Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr., 183 (2011)
DLT 402 and Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. v Kavita P
Lalwani, MANU/DE/2203/2012
94. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hemant Jain v
Sidharth Jaju, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10898 and Zulfiqar Ali
& Anr. v Mohd Idrish & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10304
qua due observation of strictness in grant of adjournments, did
not leave scope for this Court to grant 'any' adjournment to the
plaintiff, on 06.09.2018. The exact observation made in Zulfiqar Ali
(supra) is reproduced below:
“16. Unless the Courts start enforcing
discipline and refuse to grant indulgence
and dates at the mere asking, as his grown
to be a practice, the Advocates and the
litigants would refuse to respect the dates
and take the dates of hearing before the
Courts casually, without any seriousness
attached thereto and without any
preparation for participation in the hearing
for which the matter is listed and which
will result in the suits continuing to
languish and all the efforts being made on
the Administrative side to expedite the
disposal of the suits going waste. It is only
when the Courts, acting judicially refuse to
grant indulgence will the measures
prescribed on the Administrative side will
bear any fruit.
95. Chunnilal v Ramchandra, 2002 1 MPWN Note 105 and
Babu Khan v Kaptan Singh, 1980 (2) MPWN 261.1 (Order
XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908) (local commissioner)
96. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors., v K.K. Modi & Ors., 2006
4 SCC 385. (VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908)
97. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kiran Chhabra v
Pawan Kumar Jain, (2011) 178 DLT 462. (for filing of written
submissions, even at the stage of the final arguments.)
98. Punjab Pen House v Samrat Bicycle Ltd., AIR 1992 Del 1
and Bharat Forge Ltd. v Onil Gulati, AIR 2005 Del
369. (converting suit to ordinary suit).
99. Y.N. Gupta v Jagdish Chander Sharma & Anr., (2010) 116
DRJ 737.
100. R.K. Roja v U.S. Rayudu & Anr., (2016) 14 SCC 275
for
101. Dr. N.G. Dastane v Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326)
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The normal rule which governs
civil proceedings is that a fact is said to be established, if it is
proved by preponderance of probabilities (re: paragraph 24 of the
said judgment).
102. Svapn Construction v IDPL Employees Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 2006 (1) R.A.J. 486
(Del) and Miraj Marketing Corporation v Vishaka
Engineering, 2004 (115) DLT 471.
103. In this regard, reference is craved to the judgments in
Gurcharan Singh Chadda v The B.D.O. (Gaon Sabha
Mundka) & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12271, Haji
Abdul Mateen (Deceased) through LRs v Rattan Singh, 2018
SCC OnLine Del 12268 and Saroj Aggarwal v Mehar

1 Both the said judgments have been quoted with approval in the judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of Madras in Selvi v Dorathy Paul, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 926. Also, the views
expressed in the said judgments are in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras in Ramanathan v Ayyavoo, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2355. 
Singh & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 120222, wherein the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relying upon Suraj Lamp and
Industries Private Limited v State of Haryana and Anr., (2012) 1
SCC 656 has categorically held that there cannot be any
transfer of title/ownership through agreement to sell, power of
attorney, receipt, possession letter etc.
104. DDA v Dalip Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10556.
Para 3. The initials of Delhi Development Authority are DDA. DDA also is referred to as Don't Do
Anything. Appellant/DDA has in the facts of the present case crossed all
sensibilities and civilities required for the common citizens of this country,
and there cannot be better angst expressed against the appellant/DDA than
what is observed in the first para of the impugned judgment of the first
appellate court and this para reads as under:—

“The proverbial excesses of the mighty State comes to the fore in the
present case where one instrumentality of the State, a statutory
authority i.e Delhi Development Authority, leaves no stone unturned in
shamelessly making mockery of the entire legal system in its attempt to
deny the fruits of a decree to a hapless common man and in the process,
proving to be Orwellian “Big Brother” to the hilt. A plot of land measuring
200 sq. yards was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1975, possession of
which is yet to be obtained by him, leave aside its peaceful enjoyment.
Instead plaintiff was entangled in the web of multiple litigations to such
an extent that despite having a decree in his favour, which has been
upheld lastly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he is desperate to negotiate
and be contended with a plot at the mercy of the Authority. The present
is a classic case where the State has surpassed all limits to step into the
shoes of chronic litigant in order to cover up the mistakes committed by
its officials instead of taking stern action against them.”
Para 9. This appeal is therefore dismissed with further costs of Rs.
1,00,000/- payable to the respondent/decree holder, and this costs will be
recovered by the appellant/DDA equally and proportionately from each of its
officers/employees who have ordered and directed that objections and the
appeals be filed and the respondent/decree holder be not granted the plot
being plot no. F-1-U/11, Pitampura, Delhi and as has been directed as per
the impugned order. Besides costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be proportionately
recovered by the appellant/DDA from its officers/employees for being paid
to the respondent/decree holder, the Vice Chairman of DDA is directed to
immediately set up a two persons enquiry committee within a period of two
weeks from today and in such enquiry committee to be constituted of the
senior most officers of the appellant/DDA, all those employees of the
appellant/DDA who have authorized filing of objections to the execution
2 All the said judgments have been pronounced in October 2018 and in the last judgment,
the   Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Delhi   has   also   distinguished   the   judgment   of   the   Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maya Devi v Lalta Prasad, (2015) 5 SCC 588.
proceedings of the respondent/decree holder and thereafter the appeals so
as to deny benefit of the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2002 in Suit No.
552/1990, accountability of such persons be fixed and Vice Chairman of the
DDA is directed to take strict departmental actions in accordance with the
service rules of the appellant/DDA which would require strict integrity,
sincerity and performance of duties by the officers/employees of the
appellant/DDA as public servants. If so required, and if it is found by the
enquiry committee that in fact besides wholly unjustified filing of objections
in the execution proceedings and the appeals, the concerned
officers/employees are possibly guilty of any offence under any laws of this
country, then, the enquiry committee can also make necessary
recommendations. The enquiry committee of the two of the highest placed
officers of the DDA are directed to ensure that they give their report to the
Vice Chairman of the DDA within a period of three months from today and
the Vice Chairman of the DDA will thereafter take necessary consequential
action.

105. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DTC v M/s. Vidya

Mandir Classes Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8091.
106. Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 – purchase by
son in the name of mother, does not fall under exceptions –
Mahesh Karwal v Satya Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
12090.
107. Jagdish Singh v Jasvinder Singh & Ors., (2015) 147 DRJ
596 and the amended Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act,
18701, referred therein, the plaintiffs are required to value the
reliefs of declaration and injunctions, sought by way of this
suit, as per the value of the suit property .
108. Jiwan Dass Rawal v Narain Dass & Ors., AIR 1981 Del
291, followed in Deewan Arora v Tara Devi Sen, 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 3203 and ASV Industry v Surinder Mohan,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 240 109. In H. Lakshmaiah Reddy
& Ors. v L. Venkatesh Reddy, (2015) 14 SCC 784, wherein,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to Swarani v Inder
Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 has reiterated the view that “...mutation
of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish

1 A copy of the amendment notification, Mark N1 has been placed on record of the Court
file, for the benefit of the Ld. Advocates for the parties. 
title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the
person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue
in question.”
110.