Gatekeeping Justice: Delhi High Court Intervenes in Kailash Colony Property Dispute

In a significant move to protect the rights of a property claimant, the Delhi High Court has issued an interim order restraining defendants from obstructing a plaintiff’s access to his portion of a residential property in Kailash Colony. Presiding over the matter, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna granted the relief while emphasizing the need to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a formal partition suit.

The Roots of the Dispute: A Family Inheritance

The case concerns a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff, Harsh Dewan, regarding property no. B-30, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The claim is rooted in a Will dated 19th March 1989, executed by the late Sh. Ishwar Das Choudhary.

The legal conflict arose following allegations that the defendant, Prem Kumar Chaudhary, and his family were systematically obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of his inheritance. The plaintiff contended that despite his repeated attempts to find an amicable resolution that honored his late grandfather’s wishes, the defendants maintained a hostile environment aimed at undermining his dignity and property rights.

Unpacking the Obstruction

The tension escalated when the defendants allegedly installed a steel gate, effectively blocking the plaintiff's primary access—a drive-way abutting the public road. The plaintiff argued that this was not merely a physical barrier but a calculated effort to prevent him from accessing his lawful share of the property. With the defendants failing to appear during the initial proceedings, the court moved to ensure that the plaintiff’s access remained unhindered.

Legal Analysis: Protecting the Status Quo

Justice Pushkarna’s order relies heavily on the principles underlying Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , which govern the grant of temporary injunctions. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case.

By taking action, the Court underscored the crucial legal test for interim relief: the "balance of convenience." The Court determined that if the injunction were not granted at this stage, the plaintiff would suffer "irreparable loss and injury"—a standard threshold for protecting rights while a suit is ongoing.

Key Observations

Highlighting the gravity of the situation, the Court noted:

• "The plaintiff has shown a prima facie case in his favour."
• "The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and an irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the plaintiff in case the interim relief is not granted in his favour."
• "It is directed that the plaintiff’s access to his portion in the property in question, as well as the access of other family members/visitors of the plaintiff, shall not be obstructed by the defendants in any manner."

The Path Forward

The Court has now set a clear procedural roadmap for the parties. Summons have been issued to the defendants, who are required to file their written statements and affidavits of admission or denial of documents within 30 days. The Court warned that "unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs."

For now, the order serves as a vital safeguard, ensuring that physical obstructions do not become a tool for disenfranchisement during the adjudication of the partition suit. The matter is currently slated for further hearing before the Joint Registrar on April 17, 2026, and the Court on July 17, 2026.