PIYUSH GOYAL vs OM PRAKASH & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1247/2025, CM APPL. 41967/2025 & CM APPL. 41968/2025 PIYUSH GOYAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Bagga and Ms. Mansi Asija, Advocates versus OM PRAKASH & ANR. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The situation in the present petition is unusual. 2. A suit was filed by one Mr. Om Prakash (respondent No.1 herein) for permanent and mandatory injunction. He was aggrieved that defendant (petitioner herein) was raising unauthorized construction, without having any sanctioned plan from MCD. 3. When the aforesaid suit was taken up by learned Trial Court on 24.08.2024, learned Trial Court wondered as to how any of his civil rights were infringed by the alleged unauthorized construction and, resultantly, the suit was rejected for non-disclosing of any cause of action and being barred by law. Undoubtedly, while rejecting the suit, learned Trial Court also observed that it will be open to MCD to take appropriate action against such defendant in respect of alleged illegal construction. 4. Fact, however, remains that the suit was rejected. 5. Against such rejection of his suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal. 6. Such appeal is pending adjudication. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1247/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:19.07.2025 12:43:09 7. However, when the aforesaid appeal was taken up by the learned First Appellate Court on 16.04.2025, the matter was, though, adjourned for arguments, the learned First Appellate Court also sought status report from MCD. 8. The grievance in the present petition is merely with respect to the aforesaid direction whereby the MCD has been asked to give status report. 9. Learned counsel for