Priyam Vada Goel Through Sanjay ... vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd (Bypl) And ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 1455 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No.83/2014

%                                                 19th March, 2014

PRIYAM VADA GOEL THROUGH SANJAY RAJU GOEL ....Appellant
                 Through: Ms. Babita Seth, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD (BYPL) AND ORS.                    ...... Respondents
                Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA


To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. Nos.4977/2014 and 4978/2014 (exemption)

1.           Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

             C.M.s stand disposed of.


+ RSA No.83/2014 and C.M. No.4976/2014 (stay)

2.           This is a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent judgments

of the Courts below; of the trial Court dated 26.10.2012 and the first

RSA No.83/2014                                               Page 1 of 3
 appellate Court dated 7.11.2013; by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff

for mandatory injunction for directions to the respondent Nos.2 to

4/defendant Nos.2 to 4 to remove their electricity meters which are installed

in the common passage of the property Nos.4796, 4797 and 4799, Ram

Bazar Cloth market, Delhi has been dismissed.


3.           Both the Courts below note that it is the undisputed case that

the staircase is common and staircase is not exclusively owned by the

appellant/plaintiff.   Once the staircase is not exclusively owned by the

appellant/plaintiff and it is owned by other persons (also who are not made

parties to the suit) the fixing of meters in the common staircase cannot be

denied to the defendants. Appellant's/plaintiff's entitlement for injunction

can only be if she was the exclusive owner of the staircase and admittedly

she is not. On a query, counsel for the appellant, who has for some strange

reasons not filed the pleadings of the Court below, admits that owners of the

adjoining property bearing Nos.4800 and 4801 are in fact her landlords

because the appellant/plaintiff is the tenant in the adjoining property bearing

Nos.4800 and 4801 with which property there is the common staircase.

Really therefore, exclusive right is claimed to a portion by denying the right

of user or benefit to other co-owners or their nominees, and which is

RSA No.83/2014                                                 Page 2 of 3
 impermissible in law, more so because deliberately it appears that other co-

owners of the staircase i.e owners of property bearing Nos.4800-4801 were

not made as parties/defendants in the suit.

4.           The Courts below have noted that it is not understood how the

appellant/plaintiff in any manner will be prejudiced or caused loss by fixing

of electricity meters in the common staircase and where other meters also

already exist.


5.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MARCH 19, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne