The court emphasized the importance of considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and justice in deciding applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, highlighting that rejection of interim relief should not be a knee-jerk response.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Goel, J.

The impugned order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional District Juge-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('ADJ') in Civil Suit No.351/2019 dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against her daughter-inlaw/respondent on the ground that he is the owner of the property No.D-16, Ashoka Niketan, Delhi admeasuring 275 sq. mtr.

2. Admittedly, the marriage of the son of the appellant, namely, Chanpreet Singh, with the respondent was solemnised on 31.01.2014 and out of the wedlock, a son, namely, Fatehvir Singh, was born on 10.02.2018. There have been matrimonial disputes between the couple. The appellant filed a complaint on 10.08.2018 with SHO PS Anand Vihar against the respondent for misbehaviour and hurling abuses at him. He lodged another complaint on 15.01.2019 with the police against the respondent.

3. The appellant alleged that in the third week of January, 2019, the respondent left the house along with her son and her belongings and started residing with her parents at B-47, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. However on 08.02.2019, the respondent along with her son returned to her matrimonial house to attend a paath, a religious ceremony, to celebrate the first birthday of her son. At the end of the first day of the ceremony, she again left her matrimonial house with her valuables and jewellery in three large suitcases. Further, on the third day of the ceremony, she again returned with her parents and her minor son and took more of her belongings and valuables. He alleged that on 10.04.2019, when he and his wife were not present at the house, the respondent along with her two brothers and others entered the house forcibly, whereupon the guard called his son and when his son reached the house, he saw the respondent leaving with all her jewellery and articles in 30 carton boxes. The appellant and his son lodged a complaint on the same day with the Police Station, Anand Vihar. He also alleged that his son, who is the husband of the respondent, has been residing separately on rent at House No.A-113, Third Floor, Surajmal Vihar, New Delhi-110092.

4. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit on 20.04.2019. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent for 09.05.2019 and after hearing the arguments, the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2019 when the impugned order came to be passed by the learned ADJ.

5. By the impugned order, the learned ADJ dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by observing that "...... it is very clear that prayer of the plaint is same as prayer in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC. There are same prayer in the main suit as well as application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC. In these circumstances, the prayer in application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC cannot be allowed at this stage. Hence, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC is hereby dismissed."

6. By impugned order, learned ADJ listed the matter on 16.09.2019 for admission/denial of the documents as well as for framing of issues. Admittedly, no written statement or reply to injunction application has so far been filed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent who is the daughter-in-law of the appellant has no right, title or interest in the property of the father-in-law in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169. To buttress his arguments on this point, he further relies upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chanchal Agrawal vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, (2015) AIR Allahabad 28 and a judgment of the Single Judge of this court in Neetu Mittal vs. Kanta Mittal & Ors, (2009) AIR Delhi 72.

7. To meet out the rea