The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the status quo order and the need for clear reasons when allowing significant changes to the subject property.

JUDGEMENT

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 24.12.2022 passed by the court of Learned Civil Judge-07, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”)

in SCJ No. 403/2018, titled as “Nalanda Modern Public School & Ors. V Sat Narain & Anr.” whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Page 2 of 10 CPC) has been partly allowed by permitting respondents to install a gate in front of the suit property.

2. Petitioners herein are the defendants and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in SCJ No. 403/2018 which is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court.

3. Before this court deals with the relevant facts of the present case, it is considered vital to descriptively put forth the background of the suit property. Initially, khasra no. 857/1, admeasuring (4-08) Extended Lal Dora, Abadi, Burari, Delhi was owned by Mir Singh, Devi Singh and Hari Ram, all sons of late Ram Dass, having 1/3rd share each. Mir singh was survived by his widow namely; Javitri Devi, who became owner of 1/3rd share of the aforesaid property after the demise of her husband. Whereas, Devi Singh was having his two sons namely; Bhim Singh and Dharambir who became the sole owners of share of Devi Singh. Both the sons of Devi Singh sold their shares to Javitri Devi vide four separate registered sale deeds all dated 07.02.2011. The petitioners before this court are the legal heirs of the 3rd share holder of late Hari Ram. The land of all the co-sharers was mutually and orally partitioned and subsequent thereto the respective parties had raised their respective construction without any hindrance from either side.

4. Respondents in their plaint filed before the learned Trial Court have averred that the plaintiff no. 2 to 6 are the owners of the suit property, respondent no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 is the lessee, who has been running the school namely, Nalanda Modern Public School since 1995. The subject Page 3 of 10 property is the common gali between the properties of the petitioners and respondents which is 12 x 330 feet. The petitioners have constructed their houses, having their windows, entry and exit in the common gali and even the school of respondent no. 1 is having gate, entry and exit and window opening towards the subject property since the very beginning. The respondents have further averred in their plaint that, petitioners have no right, title or interest in the subject property.

5. Based on the allegations made by the respondents, the respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction on 30.01.2018 against the petitioners seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners, their officials, associates, employees, attorneys, family members etc.

thereby restraining them from encroaching upon or raising any kind of construction or digging the land underneath the gali in question or from creating any kind of hindrance or nuisance in free and smooth entry or exit of the respondents. Needless to say, that the petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement on 09.03.2018. The respondents also preferred an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking following relief:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to pass an Exparte ad-interim injunctions, in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, their- officials, associates, attorneys, family members etc, thereby restraining the ~ defendants, their family members etc.

from encroaching upon or raising any kind of construction. or digging the land underneath the Gali in question or from creating any kind of hindrance or nuisance in free and smooth entry or exit of the plaintiffs, as shown