SHAKUNTALA & ORS. vs MURTI DEVI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st March, 2025 + FAO 213/2023, CM APPL. 43603/2023 & CM APPL. 43604/2023 SHAKUNTALA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, Ms. Pinky Yadav and Ms. Shruti Geol, Advs. versus MURTI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra and Mr. Yaman Yadav, Advs. Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Standing Counsel for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rules 1&2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] thereby assailing the interim order dated 28.06.2023 passed in CS DJ No. 687/2022, whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-02, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi [“trial Court”] has been pleased to restrain the appellants from raising any illegal or unauthorized construction in the suit property and also from creating any third party interest therein, till the disposal of the suit. 2. Briefly stated, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking possession of the suit property claiming that they are the Signature Not Verified FAO 213/2023 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 1 of 6 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:24.03.2025 16:10:02 owner and Bhoomidar thereof having an acquired right, title and interest in the suit property through their ancestors. It is not necessary to go through the family tree, which has been pleaded by the respondents, and suffice to state that the appellants have trespassed into the suit property admeasuring 250 sq. yards sometime in the year 2021, regarding which some police complaints were filed but no action was taken. It is claimed by the respondents that legal notice was given to the appellant No.1 calling upon her to han