$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 25/2026 & CM APPL. 5363/2026 (stay)

RAJESH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia, Ms. Hina Rajput, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, & Mr. Amit Singh Arora, Advs. versus AMIT KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel for R-3/TDDPL CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CM APPL.5364/2026

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 25/2026

1. This revision petition challenges impugned order dated 17^th November 2025, passed by District Judge-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Civil Suit No.702/2023

2. Counsel for petitioners contends that the suit was filed seeking injunction against the petitioners [original respondents] in respect of immovable property bearing No. 8740, Gali No. 14-B, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The said suit was filed by respondent [original plaintiff], who is a neighbour of petitioners herein, alleging that construction had been carried out in violation of building bye-laws and without obtaining any sanctioned building plan, including construction of chhajjas on three sides. A prayer for injunction had been sought, including mandatory injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“MCD”] to take necessary steps.

3. Counsel for petitioners points out to status report dated 26^th October 2023, filed by MCD, stating that the property was inspected on 20^th October 2023, and was found to have been constructed as per the sanctioned plan, and that no unauthorised construction had been carried out on the said property.

4. Counsel relies on provisions of Sections 343 and 347 (b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [‘MCD Act’] to submit that remedies are provided to any person aggrieved by any order or notice issued by the MCD before the Appellate Tribunal, which have not been exercised in the present case. Notably, he points out to Section 347 (E) of the MCD Act, which bars the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the notices that are appealable under Section 343 or Section 347 (B), as they are amenable to challenge before civil courts.

5. Counsel for petitioners further contends that the suit is also barred in view of decision in Rajender Motwani & Anr. v. MCD & Ors. RSA 243/2017, considering the claim is based on easementary rights and the prescription period of the same being 20 years.

6. Accordingly, issue notice.

7. Counsel for respondent no.3/ Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) accepts notice.

8. It is informed that respondent no.3 was involved since there was an electric pole near chhajja on petitioners’ property.

9. Counsel for respondent no.3 states that no complaint was ever received to remove that electric pole.

10. Issue notice to rest of the respondents on steps being taken by petitioners, through all permissible modes, returnable on 12^th March 2026.

11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 27, 2026/SM/tk