* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 912/2012
Date of Decision:15th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
KARUNA BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.A.K. Vashishta, Adv.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Arora, Adv. with Mr.Kapil
Dutta, Adv. for MCD.
Mr. Sachin Chopra, Mr. Sashi
Mohan, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.1/MCD to seal the properties bearing No.A-261 and A-262, situated in Khasra No.5, Village Rajpur Khurd, known as Chatterpur Enclave, New Delhi.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid illegal construction has been erected by respondents No.3 and 4 on properties which are owned by the petitioner. It is also an admitted case that the petitioner has already filed a suit for possession W.P.(C) No.912/2012 Page 1 of 4 against respondents No.3 & 4 which is pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Saket Courts. The Court is informed that the said case was listed in the trial court on 13.02.2012 and is now listed on 29.04.2012 for completion of pleadings.
3. The present petition is predicated on the averments made by MCD in its written statement filed on 08.04.2011 in the suit proceedings filed by the petitioner and pending in the court below. Pertinently, respondent No.1/MCD has been impleaded by the petitioner/plaintiff as defendant No.5 in the aforesaid civil suit. The petitioner claims that as the MCD has itself stated that there exists unauthorized construction in the subject premises and sealing orders had been passed in respect thereof, the said respondent be directed to take appropriate action for removal of the said unauthorized construction in the subject premises.
4. On a pointed query addressed to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the steps, if any, taken by the petitioner to press for such interim relief in the suit proceedings, more so when the aforesaid written statement came to be filed by the MCD about ten months ago on 08.04.2011, he states that no such steps have been taken so far by the petitioner. However, he concedes that the petitioner had filed an interim application in the trial court for issuance of directions to the respondent No.1/MCD for removal of the unauthorized construction as W.P.(C) No.912/2012 Page 2 of 4 has been sought in the present petition. That apart, the petitioner had also sought directions against respondents No.3 and 4 in the aforesaid application, praying inter alia for restraining them from creating any third party interest in the subject premises. The said application is stated to be pending and counsel states that no orders have been passed on the same till date.
5. Having regard to the fact that a civil suit has already been instituted by the petitioner against respondents No.3 & 4 in the District Court, Saket, which is pending adjudication and further considering the fact that an interim application for the same relief as sought in the present petition had been filed by the petitioner in the said proceedings, the present petition can only be treated as an attempt on the part of the petitioner to indulge in forum shopping, which is impermissible. Such an attempt on the part of the petitioner is deprecated in the strong terms. If the petitioner has a grievance that the trial court had not passed any order on the interim application filed by her in the pending civil proceedings, it was for her to approach the appellate Court for appropriate relief. Instead, she has filed the present misconceived petition.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court declines to exercise the extraordinary powers of judicial review vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is W.P.(C) No.912/2012 Page 3 of 4 dismissed in limine with costs quantified at of `20,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1/MCD within two weeks. Proof of deposit of costs shall be placed on the record of the civil court well before the next date of hearing.
7. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry directly to the trial Court which shall ensure that the costs of `20,000/- imposed on the petitioner are duly paid to respondent No.1/MCD (defendant No.5 in the civil suit) when the suit comes up for hearing on 29.04.2012.
HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 15, 2012 'anb' W.P.(C) No.912/2012 Page 4 of 4