* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 15^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 10^th April, 2026 + RFA No. 528/2022, CM APPL. 46714/2022 (stay) & CM APPL.

27245/2025 SMT. SUMITRA DEVI W/o Sh. Bal Kishan R/o Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041 ….Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Ms. Ritika Tawar and Ms. Prachi Patwal, Advocates.

versus

1. Shri Ajeet Singh S/o Shri Harkaish R/o H. No. 227, Plot No. 37, Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041 ….Respondent No.1

2. Shri Bal Kishan S/o Shri Mange Ram Prajapat R/o Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041 ….Respondent No.2 Through: Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, and Mr.

Anubhav, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), has been preferred on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant No.2 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2022, whereby the learned District Judge- 03 Delhi, decreed the Suit of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff for Damages in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with the pendente lite and future interest @10% p.a, against the Appellant/Defendant No.2. No Decree has been passed against Defendant No.1, who is arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the present Appeal, as he is only a formal party.

2. The Brief facts are that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, Ajeet Singh, is the owner of property bearing house No.227, Plot No.37, Village, Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041, ad-measuring about 100 square yards having construction on the ground floor and partly on the first floor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit property’).

3. The Defendant No.2/Appellant, Sumitra Devi, wife of Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2, Shri Bal Kishan, were residing in the adjacent property and had started reconstruction of their property in October, 2014. The Defendants excavated their plot negligently without take the requisite precautions to safeguard the Suit Property of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 from suffering any damage. As a result, various cracks developed and the flooring of the ground floor and roof of the building of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, got severely damaged and became unhabitable.

4. The Plaintiffs claimed that they had requested the Defendants on several occasions, to take requisite precautions and safety measures during the construction of their property, but they failed to pay any heed to these requests of the Plaintiff. This led the Plaintiff to file a complaint dated

04.12.2014 vide DD No. 33B at Police Station Mundka, Delhi, but no action was taken.

5. The Plaintiff got the damages assessed from a Government-approved Architect/ Engineer and Valuer, who valued the damage to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-.

6. The Plaintiff thereafter, issued a Legal Notice dated 15.12.2014 to the Defendants, to which a reply dated 22.12.2014 was given, denying any liability to pay the damages.

7. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest @10% p.a.

8. The Defendant No. 1/Respondent No.2, in his Written Statement took the preliminary objection that the Plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was also bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. It was further asserted that the Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2 was neither the owner of the adjacent property nor had he carried out any construction causing damage to the Plaintiff’s property. The Suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as being false, frivolous and concocted, having been filed with the sole motive to harass the Defendants and to extort money.

9. It was further asserted that the construction of the Suit Property of the Plaintiff was very old and was already in damaged condition. The Plaintiff is misusing the process of law and wants to repair his property, at the cost of the Defendant.

10. The Defendant No. 2, Ms. Sumitra Devi, wife of Defendant No.1, was impleaded thereafter, who, in her Written Stat