The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's role in facilitating an amicable resolution to property disputes, considering the rights of the parties and practical implications of access to common areas.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiffs, namely (i) Askaran Agarwala, (ii) Radha Agarwala, (iii) Atul Agarwala, (iv) Sunangala Agarwala and (v) A.K. Agarwala HUF, have instituted this suit against three defendants, namely (a) Aswajit Singh, (b) Tanya Singh and (c) IPE Global Services Pvt. Ltd., for the following relief’s:

“(a) Issue a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing or hindering the plaintiffs and their agents and guests from using all common facilities and common areas of the suit property bearing No.54 situated at Block-S, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017 and the building standing thereupon, including the use of the south west entrance to the Basement floor and restraining the defendants from obstructing or interfering in any manner in the exercise by the plaintiffs of their common rights, interests, easements and privileges in respect of the Suit Property;

(b) Issue a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove steel gate installed in front of south west entrance of the basement floor in the common area of the plot bearing 54, situated at Block-S, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017; to remove the generator and the servant quarters erected on the south-west side driveway of the said plot;

(c) Issue a declaration that the plaintiffs have the right to use the common areas of the property No.S-54, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017; and,

(d) Pass a decree of costs in the present proceedings in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

2. The suit came up first before this Court on 21st October, 2016, when summons thereof were ordered to be issued. The pleadings have been completed and the suit, ripe for framing of issues, came up before this Court on 8th January, 2020, when finding that the dispute between the parties was only with respect to the use of the South-West Driveway in property No.S-54, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017, it was proposed that the dispute be resolved amicably and the counsels fairly reciprocated and certain suggestions were exchanged in the Court and the matter adjourned to enable the counsels to confer with their clients and to resolve other acrimonious situations, even of beyond the scope of the suit, to enable the parties to cordially enjoy the property.

3. The undisputed position is that while the plaintiffs are the owners of basement and ground floor of the property, the defendants are the owners of the first and second floors of the property. The property has two Entrance Gates and two Driveways.

4. The counsels, on 8th January, 2020, were heard with reference to the site plan filed by the plaintiffs and on which, in today’s date, for identification, Ex.C-1 has been put. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have an exclusive right to use of Entrance Gate at point A and to the Driveway in front thereof at point ‘B’ on Ex.C-1. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have a right to use Gate at point ‘C’ and the Driveway in front thereof at point ‘D’ on Ex.C-1 but the plaintiffs have a right to access the said Driveway D from the basement through the common staircase at point ‘E’ in Ex.C-1.

5. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the basement in the property in the ownership of the plaintiffs has access, both from Driveway B and Driveway D in the property; the plaintiffs instituted this suit claiming that the defendants had deprived the plaintiffs from accessing the basement through Driveway D and from using the common staircase for going from the basement to Driveway D, by installing a steel door at the level of the ground floor in front of the staircase coming from basement towards Driveway D.

6. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs do not have any right to Gate at point ‘C’ or to the Driveway D in Ex.C-1 and the access to the basement of the plaintiffs is only from Gate-A and Driveway B.

7. On 8th January, 2020, it was proposed that to maintain cordiality and peace and neighbourly relations, the plaintiff