Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja vs Mst. Sahida Ahmad And Ors on 10 November, 2021
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th November, 2021
+ FAO 249/2021
RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA ..... Appellant
versus
MST. SAHIDA AHMAD AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. J. Amal Anand,
Mr. Elvin Joshy, Ms. KirtikaChhatwal,
Advocates with Appellant in person
For the Respondents : Mr. Hem C. Vashisht, Advocate for R-1,
4,5, 7& 8
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CM APPLN. 39693/2021 & 39695/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO 249/2021& CM APPLN. 39692/2021 (stay)& 39694/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns order dated 01.11.2021 whereby the application
of the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed
holding that the relief sought in the application is beyond the subject matter
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.11.2021
Signing Date:11.11.2021 08:32:16 21:11
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
of the suit.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial
court has erred in holding that the relief claimed is beyond the subject
matter of the suit, in as much as, in prayer (ii), an injunction has been
sought against the respondents, inter-alia, from holding any function,
unlawful assembly or doing any illegal act on any part of the property.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in
possession of the entire property and has been continuously using the same
from the very inception till date. He further submits that proxy litigations
were also filed by the respondents unsuccessfully before several forums.
5. He submits that in case the respondents are not restrained from
holding any marriage function in the subject property, grave prejudice
would be caused to the appellant.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 1, 4, 5, 7 & 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 1, 4, 5, 7 & 8 submits that they are ones who are proposing to hold the
marriage function of respondent no. 4.
7. Learned counsel, under instruction, submits that in view of the
controversy raised and without prejudice to their rights and contentions,
they shall not hold the proposed marriage function on the subject property.
8. The statement is taken on record.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.11.2021
Signing Date:11.11.2021 08:32:16 21:11
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of binding the respondents
to their statements that no marriage function shall be held in the subject
premises as proposed.
10. This would, however, be without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties and would not, in any manner, influence the trial
court in the final adjudication of the suit.
11. It is pointed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
wall adjoining the servant quarters has been broken by the respondents for
the purposes of bringing in their guests from that side.
12. This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents
who submits that the wall has fallen down on account of natural
circumstances.
13. Without getting into the said controversy, appellant is permitted to
have the said wall repaired.
14. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be
also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.11.2021
Signing Date:11.11.2021 08:32:16 21:11
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
