- CM(M) 1975/2025, CM APPL. 64046/2025 & CM APPL.
64045/2025
SH DINESH SINGHAL ALIAS SINDHAL …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal,
Advocate.
versus
DEEPAK JAIN & ANR. …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhavishya Makhija, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R (ORAL)
- The petitioner (defendant no.1 in the suit) has assailed order dated
30.08.2025, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was
and mandatory injunction to restrain the present petitioner/defendant no.1
from carrying out further structural construction activity in his premises (the
subject premises), which are adjacent to the premises of the present
respondent no.1/plaintiff; the present respondent no.1/plaintiff also sought
mandatory injunction to the municipal and police authorities to remove the
illegal and unlawful construction carried out in the subject premises. The
present respondent no.1/plaintiff laid foundation of his suit on the allegation
that the unauthorized construction being carried out in the subject premises
had resulted in damage to his premises. The present petitioner/defendant
no.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the
subject suit is barred by the provisions under Sections 347B and 347E of the
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act since, the subject premises have already
been booked by the MCD on the grounds of illegal construction and the
consequent sealing/demolition order also stands passed. The learned trial
court, by way of the impugned order took a view that the provisions under
Sections 347B and Section 347E of the Act do not create an embargo on the
subject suit, so the application was dismissed.
- Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant no.1 contends that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the subject
premises having already been booked by the MCD, it is only the Appellate
Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD) which has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute
and the present petitioner/defendant no.1 has already approached ATMCD
in that regard. It is also contended by learned counsel for
petitioner/defendant no.1 that the petitioner/defendant no.1 has not carried