ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.(Oral)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) seeking the following reliefs:

―(i) Impugned Judgment dated 05.03.2020 (ANNEXURE 1), passed by the court of Ms. Vandana Jain, Additional District Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No.149/2017 title Rajender Jaina Vs. Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. be set aside / quashed /

appropriately modified / altered.

(ii) Such other and further orders which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice may also be passed.‖

2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant appeal are reproduced herein below:

a. The appellant owns and occupies the 3rd floor and terrace of the property bearing No. B-54-A in Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi (hereinafter “suit property”) as per the registered sale deed dated 18th May 2006.

b. The aforesaid suit property is comprised of basement, ground floor, 1st Floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor, and Terrace.

c. The appellant filed the writ petition bearing No. W.P. (C)

14136/ 2006 before this Court seeking demolition of the car garage. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8th September, 2006 directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to inspect the suit property and take action warranted as per the circumstances.

d. The respondent No. 1 acquired ownership of the 2nd floor of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 1st February 2007.

e. Thereafter, a lift was installed in the premises as per sanctioned plan for a total sum of approxRs.5,95,000/- from M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. vide agreement dated 16th May 2006.

f. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 started the demolition of a section of the intervening wall separating the lift wall from one of their rooms, resulting in damage to the lift. Subsequently, the appellant lodged a complaint on 17th January, 2008 after unsuccessful attempts to reach respondent No. 1 in order to stop the aforesaid demolition. Eventually, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to demolish the remaining portion of the wall, rendering the lift inoperative and then the security officer namely Sh. R.S. Dabas filed a complaint against the same.

g. Pursuant to the damage incurred by the appellant in getting the lift repaired, he installed a steel frame on the affected area.

h. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent no.1 remained persistent in their disruptive actions, further damaged the repaired portion with hammers. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the appellant filed a civil suit bearing CS No. 149/2017 (new case number as the suit was originally filed on 8th February 2008) before this Court (eventually transferred to Saket District Court due to enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court) against the respondent No.1, seeking the following reliefs:

―1. A decree of perpetual injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant No.1, his agents, employees etc. from causing any obstruction in the repair/ maintenance/ use/ operation of the lift in the premises No.B- 54A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-

110048.

2. The defendant No.2 be directed to ensure compliance and to take all preventive measures as may be necessary towards the peaceful functioning of the lift in premises No.B-54A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048.

3. The Defendant No.1 be directed to share the proportionate expenses towards installing and regular maintenance of the lift, so as to avail the lift facility.

4. Decree for money be passed in favour of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- for the damages caused, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.

5. Such other and further order with this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.‖

i. The respondent No. 1 filed a counterclaim before the learned Trial Court stating his position as the Managing Director of M/s Skyline Infr