* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 15.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 21.11.2025

+ FAO 78/2023 & CM APPLs. 15779/2023, 21111/2023

RACHNA MEHNIDRATTA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Harshit Vashisht, Mr. Avinash Kapoor, Mr. Dipayan Gupta and Mr. Shivdeep Kumar Tripathi, Advocates

Versus

GIRDHARI LAL .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Dinesh Garg, Advocate alongwith respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present appeal under section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC)assails the correctness of the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CS No. 582/2019, titled as “Girdhari Lal v. Narender Kumar & Ors.”, whereby the trial court allowed the respondent/plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants, including the appellant/defendant herein, from creating any third-party interest in the suit property and from carrying out any construction entailing structural changes therein during the pendency of the suit.

2. The property in question is 38/1, Ground Floor, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (the suit property), originally allotted to late Shri Lila Ram undervide a registered lease dated 30.04.1965. The respondent/plaintiff herein asserts that upon the demise of the original allottee, the property devolved upon the legal heirs of late Shri Lila Ram and, pursuant to an oral family settlement subsequently reduced into writing in 2007, the suit property fell to his share along with that of his brother.

3. The respondent/plaintiff alleges that Mr. Narender Kumar, was a tenant under his father and thereafter under him, and that in early 2017, the said tenant disclaimed the respondent/plaintiff’s title and asserted that the appellant/defendant herein, had become the owner. The respondent/plaintiff further alleges that certain renovation works were commenced by the defendants (of the aforementioned suit) without authority, compelling him to institute the present suit for possession and injunction.

4. Theappellant/defendant herein, who was impleaded upon the demise of Smt. Sushma Mehndiratta, claims through a long chain of successive registered transactions, commencing from a family settlement dated 01.07.1974, subsequent GPA and mutation in favour of Shri Kishan Chand in 1997, and thereafter through multiple registered Agreements to Sell and GPAs executed between 1997 and 2016. The appellant/defendant herein claims to be a bonafide purchaser for value under registered instruments dated 29.06.2016.

5. Prior to the institution of the present suit, the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a comprehensive suit in 1999, being CS No. 626/1999 – “Girdhari Lal & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.”, seeking partition, declaration, and consequential reliefs in respect of, inter alia, the suit property. Issues in the said suit stand framed and evidence is underway. Owing to overlapping subject property and parties, the subsequent suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff, including the present suit, were transferred and consolidated with the 1999 suit vide order dated 01.06.2022, with the 1999 suit designated as the lead suit for recording of evidence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant assails the impugned order primarily on the ground that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/plaintiff has no prima facie right, title, or interest in the suit property. Counsel submits that the respondent/plaintiff’s claim based on an alleged family settlement remains sub judice in the 1999 lead suit for over two decades. Until the question of title is adjudicated therein, no injunctive relief could be granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in collateral proceedings.

6.1 The learned counsel would also contend that the respondent/plaintiff un