* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 22^nd December 2025

Pronounced on : 13th January 2026 Uploaded on : 13^th January 2026

+ FAO 187/2020

CHAMAN SINGH VERMA & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate along

with Appellant in person.

versus

DHARAM YUG .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ankit Dixit and Mr. Ashish

Kumar, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal assails the impugned order dated 13^th January 2020 passed in Civil Suit No. 571/2018 titled “Chaman Singh Verma & Ors. v. Manish Arora & Ors.”, dismissing the application moved by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). Appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent and

mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants seeking a decree of declaration that plaintiffs have an unhindered right to use the common passage in relation to the property at RZ-111/A, Gali No. 7, East Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046, and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants to remove the lock on the main gate through Gali No. 7, as well as the locks from the smaller gates within the main gate. Further, permanent injunction was sought against the defendants to restrain them from blocking the common passage, by parking either four wheelers/ automobiles or any two or three wheelers or any other object impeding the free use of the common passage. The other reliefs sought in the plaint were essentially of the same effect, namely that the plaintiffs’ passage to their part of the dwelling should not be impeded.

2. As part of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was filed seeking ex parte ad-interim temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants from causing any hindrance in the peaceful enjoyment of the common passage.

3. Appellant/plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 3 are absolute owners in possession of their respective portions of the property/flat which has been built on the said property and respectively own the 2nd Floor, 1st Floor and the Upper Ground Floor.

4. Respondent nos. 2-5 in this appeal are all partners of M/s Arora Builders, who are in the business of construction of residential dwellings.

5. Respondent no.1/defendant no. 5 herein is a resident of the front portion of the said property.

6. Respondent no. 1/defendant no. 5 entered into a collaboration agreement dated 26^th May 2016 with respondent nos. 2-5/defendant nos. 1-4 and developed and constructed the property at plot no. RZ-111/A and built a three-storey structure with a stilt parking space.

7. Collaboration agreement was executed between respondent no. 1/defendant no. 5 on one hand and respondent nos. 2-5/defendant no. 1-4, the builders, on the other for development and construction of a dwelling unit on the said plot. It was agreed that three storeys would be built, i.e., upper ground floor, first floor and second floor, with stilt parking space and that the construction would be done by respondent nos. 2-5/defendant no. 1-4.

8. Post the construction, the division of the dwelling units was as under:

i. Respondent no. 1/defendant no. 5 would be the owner of shops in the stilt parking, one-room set in the stilt parking space, upper ground floor, first floor and second floor with roof rights over the stilt parking space.

ii. The builders (respondent nos.2-5/defendant nos.1-4) would be the owners of the entire back portion of the property measuring 60 sq. yds.

and four car-parking spaces from the front side of the said property.

9. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed by respondent no. 1/defendant no. 5 in favour of the builders on 19^th December 2016 in relation to the back portion of the property admeasuring 60 sq. Yds.

10. Notably, the recital of the said sale deed recorded that the sale would be along with water, electricity, sewerage and common rights of staircase and passage.

11. Post the dwelling units being built, the back portion of the said property came