VIRENDER CHAWLA & ANR. vs NARESH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18.11.2025 + FAO 192/2025 and CM APPL. 43110/2025 VIRENDER CHAWLA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Manish Gandhi, Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Mr.Dushyant Kishan Kaul and Ms.Lija Merin John, Advocates. versus NARESH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. The appellants are represented. 2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 30.10.2025, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. However, on the said date, no adverse order was passed and the matter was adjourned to this day. 3. Today also, there is no appearance for the respondents. Signature Not Verified Signed By:KOMAL FAO 192/2025 Page 1 DHAWAN Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:18:25 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The present appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), has been filed against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge -02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 278/225, by which an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed, holding that the appellants/ plaintiffs were unable to make out a prima facie case. 6. During the course of oral arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to Annexure A- 12 and Annexure A-13. Annexure A-13 is an order dated 05.04.2023 passed in CS No. 742/2020, by which the suit filed by the respondents/defendants, claiming that the disputed area is a private temple, was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Annexure A-12, which is an order dated 13.11.2020 of the SDM, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, states that the appellan