IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession must be supported by evidence of open and hostile possession, and the balance of convenience in cases of interim relief favors the party with a prima facie strong case and legitimate approval for property maintenance.

JUDGMENT

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This common judgment shall decided the above-noted two appeals filed by the appellants under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[CPC] assailing the common order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Mr. Satyabrata Panda, learned Additional District Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi[ADJ], whereby the applications moved by the appellants i.e. the defendants before the learned ADJ (hereinafter referred as the appellants/defendants) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as also application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC were dismissed, while at the same time the applications moved by the respondents i.e., the plaintiffs before the learned ADJ (hereinafter referred as the respondents/plaintiffs) were allowed in Civil Suit bearing No.409/2023 titled as 'Sanjay Gupta v. Golden Assets Holding (P) Ltd. It is clarified that in FAO 301/2023 the appellants/defendants have challenged the dismissal of their application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C while in FAO 300/2023, the appellants/defendants have challenged the grant of interim injunction on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs as against them.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for "Mandatory Injunction & Damages" against the appellants/defendants claiming themselves to be the owners of property on the first floor bearing No. E-40 & E-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'suit property') and claiming possession of the roof/open terrace vertically over the suit property and sought the following reliefs:

"a) Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants their agents, employees, representatives, assigns, executives, legal heirs, nominees etc. from in any manner obstructing, preventing or interfering with the Plaintiffs' peaceful use and possession of the open roof/terrace over and above the properties bearing No. E-40 & E-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001;

b) Pass an order/ decree of damages in favour of the Plaintiffs and against that Defendants, thereby granting a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-[Indian Rupees Ten Lakhs] for causing criminal intimidation, mental stress, trauma, anguish and frustration to the Plaintiffs;"

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice to state that the respondents/plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC claiming interim relief against the appellants/defendants from obstructing their ingress and egress to the roof/open terrace of the suit property and inter alia from preventing, obstructing and/or interfering with the repair and renovation work sought to be carried out by the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit property. The suit was filed on 19.10.2023, which was listed before the learned ADJ on 20.10.2023 and on issuance of summons/notice, the appellants/defendants put their appearance on 21.10.2023 and thereafter moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC pleading that the respondents/plaintiffs have not been in possession of the roof/open terrace portion of the suit property even much prior to the month of September, 2001 which was in occupation of certain outsiders/tenants/trespassers and since 20.09.2001 the appellants/ defendants have been in exclusive use, occupation and possession of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants/defendants are admittedly owners of the adjoining premises bearing No. E-42 and E-43, Connaught Place, New Delhi and it was claimed that they have had uninterrupted access to the roof/open terrace of the suit property through the adjoining property since September, 2001 to the total exclusion of the respondents/plaintiffs, although the latter are the owner and occupier of the suit property No. E-40 & E-41.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for