$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19^thDecember, 2025 Pronounced on:17^th April, 2026.

+ RFA 70/2019, CM APPL. 3892/2019, CM APPL. 34117/2019 & CM APPL. 46747/2023 SUNITA SINHA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Kanav Madnani, Ms. Urvija Sharma, Ms. Aayomi Sharma, Mr. Sultan Jafri, Mr. Mohd. Umar and Mr.

Abhigyan Pandey, Advs.

M: 9958029634 versus M/S LEELA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.& ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.

Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Kavita Vinayak and Mr. Gaurav Vashisth, Advs. for R-1 to 8 M: 9540022777 Email: gaurav@ssklawchambers.com Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Adv for R-9 Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Gaind, Mr. Ajay Singh Gosain, Ms. Astha Sharma and Ms. Nitasha Gupta, Advs.

for R-10 M: 9871316969 Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate for R-11 (M:9971560508)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGMENT

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Regular First Appeal (“RFA”) has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), thereby, challenging the judgment dated 10^th January, 2019 (“impugned judgment”), passed by the Additional District Judge - 07, Saket Courts, New Delhi (“ADJ”), in the suit bearing CS No. 2162/2008 (renumbered as CS No. 1180/2017), titled as ―Sunita Sinha and Anr. Versus M/s. Leela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.‖, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs, seeking mandatory injunction to restrain defendant nos. 1 to 8 from using the property bearing No. 48, Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 966.33 sq. yards (“suit property”), and to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The suit, in the alternative, prayed for grant of decree of possession with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, along with recovery of mesne profits and for permanent injunction, in respect of the same.

3. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note that this Court vide order dated 28^th January, 2019, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the suit property. Subsequently, an application being C.M. APPL. 34117/2019 came to be filed by respondent nos. 1 to 8 seeking modification of the order dated 28^th January, 2019 in order for them to seek mutation of the suit property in their name with the undertaking that they shall not part with the possession of the suit property. However, by way the order dated 29^th August, 2024, the said application was directed to be dealt with directly at the time of hearing of the main appeal.

4. This Court vide order dated 05^th May, 2022 has recorded that respondent nos. 1 to 8 are the only contesting parties in the present appeal. Further, this Court dealt with the application, i.e., C.M. APPL. 7668/2021, filed jointly by the four applicants, namely, Shri Sanjeev Sinha (husband of the deceased appellant), Shri Gaurav Sinha (son of the deceased appellant), Shri Mahesh Kapoor and Smt. Usha Kapoor, thereby, seeking their substitution in the appeal in place of the deceased appellant, i.e., Smt. Sunita Sinha, who died on 07^th September, 2020.

5. By way of the aforesaid order, this Court impleaded Shri Sanjeev Sinha (husband of the deceased appellant) and Shri Gaurav Sinha (son of the deceased appellant) as the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. However, the other applicants, being Shri Mahesh Kapoor and Smt. Usha Kapoor, were not impleaded, since they were third parties who claimed interest in the suit property on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated 05^th December, 2005, executed by the appellant in their favour. The said applicants, however, were granted liberty to take appropriate steps for their intervention in the appeal separately. However, no steps were taken in this regard.

II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE a. Pre-Filing of the Suit

6. The brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the app