MOHD. SHAMIM vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 + C.R.P. 198/2024 & CM Appl. 37332/2024 MOHD. SHAMIM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Harish Narang, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 29.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ASCJ, Central, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by Respondent No. 2/Defendant (before the learned Trial Court) has been allowed and the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit based on this Application. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner (Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) filed a suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of shop no. 5156, situated on 3rd floor, with roof, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. 3. The learned Trial Court examined the plaint and found that the Petitioner has stated that Defendant No. 2, who is the Respondent No.2, is in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:31.05.2025 C.R.P. 198/2024 Page 1 of 7 12:37:40 possession of the third floor and as per the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 is in illegal occupation, however, the suit has been filed seeking relief of injunction simpliciter. Relying on the Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors.1, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the Petitioner. 4. A perusal of the plaint shows that a suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction ha