RSA 233/2019

Page 1 of 6

$~27(Appellate-2022)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA 233/2019 and CM Appl. 50920/2019 (stay)

SANJAY CHUGH & ANR

..... Appellants

Through

Mr. Vikas Tomar, Advocate

versus

RAM KISHAN & ORS

..... Respondents

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

%

30.03.2022

1.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assails an order dated 26^th September, 2019,

passed by the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ”) in

Misc Appl 576/2018, whereby the learned ADJ has reversed an order

dated 20^th

2.

The plaint, from which these proceedings emanate, was

preferred by the respondents against the appellants, seeking mandatory

injunction, directing the appellants to remove malba, garbage etc.,

which they were alleged to have thrown in open land adjacent to the

respondents’ premises and for permanently restraining the appellants

from throwing any such malwa, garbage etc. at the said land. It was

specifically alleged, in para 17 of the plaint, that consequent to certain

disputes having arisen between the appellants and the respondents,

whereby the appellants were restrained, as a result of which the

appellants were allegedly thwarted in their attempts to raise

July, 2018, passed by the learned JSCC-ASCJ-GJ (“the

learned Civil Judge”).

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001165

RSA 233/2019

Page 2 of 6

construction on the open land, they started depositing garbage therein.

The plaint also asserts that the respondents had, in this context,

addressed a written complaint to the Police Station Mayur Vihar on

13^th November, 2012 but that the nuisance continued.

3.

The learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 20^th July, 2018,

dismissed the suit as not being maintainable in view of Section 41(j)

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which proscribes grant of injunction

“when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter”.

4.

On the ground that the respondents have no personal interest in

the matter, the learned Civil Judge rejected the suit for want of

existence of a valid cause of action, exercising jurisdiction under

Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. Paras 2 to 6 of the order of the

learned Civil Judge read thus:

“2.

In paragraph 4 of the plaint of this suit, the plaintiffs

have themselves pleaded that they have no right, title or

interest in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed

along with the plaint and they have trespassed upon the said

land, just like the other owners of flats of ground floors, of the

locality.

3.

Along with the plaint of this suit, the plaintiffs have

filed an Order dated 12.07.2012, passed by Dr. Saurabh

Kulshrestha, the then Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, East

District, KKD Courts, Delhi in a previous suit filed by the

plaintiffs against the defendants, seeking reliefs of injunctions

qua the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the

plaint. In the said Order, Dr. Saurabh Kulshrestha, the then

Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, East District, KKD Courts,

Delhi has observed that the plaintiffs have no exclusive rights

in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed along

with the plaint.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001165

RSA 233/2019

Page 3 of 6

4.

From the pleadings made in paragraph 4 of the plaint

and from the observations made by Dr. Saurabh Kulshrestha,

the then Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, East District, KKD

Courts, Delhi in the aforesaid Order, I am convinced that the

plaintiffs have no personal right, title or interest, in respect of

the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the

plaint.

5.

In Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is

specifically provided that no injunction can be granted when

the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

6.

Keeping in view the fact that th