$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 177/2025, CM APPL. 69683/2025 (for stay)

TARUN TULI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus V.P NAHAR .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 10.11.2025 CM APPL. 69684/2025 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed-of.

RSA 177/2025 By way of the present regular second appeal filed under section

100 read with Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellant impugns judgment and decree dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned first appellate court of the learned District Judge-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA DJ No.52/2024 and judgement and decree dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate JJB-VII, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS No. 6552/2016.

2. The genesis of the dispute between the parties is the respondent’s demand (plaintiff in the suit) that the appellant (defendant in the suit) be directed to remove the alleged illegal encroachment made by the appellant on common areas by putting-up a gate in the service lane, and by blocking certain common areas with iron/bamboo poles, and by keeping plants etc. to prevent of vehicles being parked in and around apartment bearing No. B-1G, Delhi Police Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.

3. By way of the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.11.2024, the learned trial court had directed the appellant to remove the illegal encroachments on the common areas as detailed in para 21 of its judgment, within 30 days, failing which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was directed to take appropriate action for such removal.

4. Vide judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned first appellate court, the judgment and decree of the learned trial court has been upheld.

5. The court has heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in relation to the proposed questions of law set-out in the memo of appeal.

6. The proposed questions of law set-out read as follows :

“SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OFLAW:-

A.) Whether if there is a serious question mark over the locus standi of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff can be tried and decided without decidinglocus standi of theplaintiff tofilethesuit?

B.) Whether during the trial, if once trial court raised the issueregardingthemaintainabilityof thesuit aswell as locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, the court can proceed with the trial without deciding the question of the maintainability as well as the questionof theLocus standi of theplaintiff?

C.) Whether the provision of order XX rule 1 CPC which laid down the law regarding the time frame for pronounce of the Judgment, gives any discretion to a civil court to pronounce the judgment beyond the 60 days from the day when the court reserved the Judgment and whether Provision of order XX rule 1 CPC gives anydiscretiontothecivil court beyondtheperiod of 60days.

D.) Whether an area/land situated with in the boundary of the residential group Housing Society shall be treated as public place for the non-resident of the society and whether any Civil suit for Injunction filed by the non-resident qua the use of the common area of the society is maintainable without impleading the Society as necessaryparty?

E.) Whether the trial court pass the judgment/decree only on the basis of presumptions, ignoring all the material facts and evidenceonrecord is illegal or not?

F.) Whether court of law can ignore the basic principle of natural justiceandcondemnapartyunheard?

G.) Whether the Ld. Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have committed a serious error by giving a perverse finding whicharecontrarytothe material availableonrecord?”

7. Insofar as the question of locus-standi of the respondent to file the suit is concerned, it transpires that the respondent is the son of the registered owner of the apartment, and the respondent had inducted tenants in