CS(OS) 578/2021

Page 1 of 14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 16^th March, 2022

+

CS(OS) 578/2021

KULJEET SINGH & ORS

...... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Yashpal Singh, Mr. Saurabh

Kansal and Mr. Kuber Giri, Advs.

Versus

JHONSON BENCHAMIN & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Vivek Kumar Tandon, Mr. Vikas

Chadha, Advs. for D-1 to 4.

Mr. Sunil Fernandes and Mr.

Shubham Sharma, Advs. for D-

5/BSES Resolution Plan.

Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Adv. for D-

6/SDMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

O R D E R

I.A. 14364/2021 (of plaintiffs u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC for ex-parte ad-

interim injunction)

1.

This order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiffs

alongwith this suit for possession, permanent injunction and declaratory

reliefs with respect to property measuring 1000 sq. yards out of Khasra

No.25, Khatha No.18, situated in the Aabadi of Village Pochanpur,

Extended Lal Dora, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter referred to as the „suit

property‟).

2022:DHC:952

CS(OS) 578/2021

Page 2 of 14

2.

The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs namely Mr. Kuljeet Singh,

his mother Ms. Paramjeet Kaur and his brother Mr. Japjeet Singh against

four private defendants, defendant No.5 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited,

defendant No.6 South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Najafgarh Zone and

the defendant No.7 Station House Officer, Police Station-Sector-23,

Dwarka, New Delhi. It may be noted that vide order dated 7^th December,

2021, on the statement of Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the

plaintiffs, the defendant No.7 Station House Officer, Police Station-Sector-

23, Dwarka, New Delhi has been deleted from the array of the parties.

3.

The case as set out by the plaintiffs is that the suit property had

originally belonged to Smt. Champa Bhasin when she had purchased the

same on 9^th December, 1986 from the original Zamindars. It is claimed

that the father of the plaintiffs No.1 & 3 and the husband of the plaintiff

No.2, S. Gurnaam Singh, had purchased the suit property from Smt.

Champa Bhasin on 8^th September, 1998. It is claimed that since then he

was enjoying the peaceful possession of the suit property. After S.

Gurnaam Singh expired on 31^st March, 2021 and after the ensuing

lockdown on account of the pandemic, which was lifted in August, 2021,

the plaintiff No.1 visited the suit property and came to know that the

defendants No.1 to 4 were in possession of the suit property which

according to him was completely illegal.

4.

It was in these circumstances that notices were issued to the persons

found in occupation but since they did not choose to vacate the suit

property, the suit has been filed. By way of the instant application, the

following prayers have been sought:

2022:DHC:952

CS(OS) 578/2021

Page 3 of 14

5.

Mr. Yashpal Singh, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has

submitted that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of 1000 Sq. yards in

Khasra No.25, Khatha No.18, situated in aabadi of Village Pochanpur, in

Extended Lal Dora, Dwarka, New Delhi vide the registered General Power

of Attorney/Agreement to Sell dated 8^th September, 1998 bearing

Registration No.53289 which was executed by Smt. Champa Bhasin in

favour of late S. Gurnaam Singh for a total consideration of Rs.75,000/-. It

was submitted that if the rights of the plaintiffs were not protected during

the pendency of the suit, the defendants no.1 to 4 would create further third

party interests in the suit property which would ultimately lead to great

prejudice to the plaintiffs and prolonged litigation. It was submitted that

the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took no action when the plaintiff No.1

had reported unauthorized construction going on in the suit land. As a

result of such inaction, the construction was completed. The learned

counsel su