Delhi High Court
Pushpinder Kumar & Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr on 17 November, 2025
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.11.2025
+ CM(M) 2193/2025, CM APPL. 71712/2025 & CM APPL.
71711/2025
PUSHPINDER KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arjit Benjamin and Ms. Kashish
Jain, Advocates
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Standing Counsel
for MCD
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R (ORAL)
1. Petitioners have assailed order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned
Appellate Tribunal, MCD, whereby the application under Order I Rule 10
CPC filed by the present respondent no. 2 was disposed of granting him
liberty to address arguments in appeal before ATMCD.
2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, I am unable to find any
perversity in the impugned order, so notice is not being issued.
3. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that an intervener can be allowed
to participate in the appeals before the ATMCD in accordance with law laid
down in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta vs. MCD, 1991 SCC OnLine
CM(M) 2193/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
Digitally Signed
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
By:NEETU N NAIR cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:28 -08'00'
Signing Date:17.11.2025
17:43:34
Del 558, but that has to be done only in exceptional cases. In this regard,
learned counsel for petitioners has referred to the application under Order I
Rule 10 CPC which led to passing of the impugned order. It is contended by
learned counsel for petitioners that there are no exceptional circumstances in
this case.
4. Having traversed through the detailed application under Order I Rule
10 CPC, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for petitioners.
Admittedly, the present respondent no. 2 is a neighbour of the petitioners,
residing in the same building which is the subject matter of the demolition
order passed by the MCD. In the said application, the present respondent
no. 2 has described at length the illegal construction carried out by
petitioners, which is not only blocking ventilation into the property of the
present respondent no. 2 but also has led to seepage on account of hazardous
substances stored in the unauthorizedly constructed storeroom, also causing
serious threat to the residents of the building. Further, it is alleged by the
present respondent no. 2 that the petitioners continue to encroach upon the
common area of the building, obstructing easement and other rights of
remaining residents. The present respondent no. 2 has also disclosed
registration of FIR No. 398/2022 by PS Vasant Kunj (North) against the
petitioners in this regard in addition to certain NCR information.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that all those allegations as
mentioned in the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC are false and are
denied.
CM(M) 2193/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
Digitally Signed
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
By:NEETU N NAIR f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:15 -08'00'
Signing Date:17.11.2025
17:43:34
6. It is made clear that the purpose of taking note of above mentioned
contents of the impleadment application of respondent no. 2 is only to show
that he is not a stranger to the subject matter, intending to blackmail the
petitioners. The purpose is to point out that respondent no. 2 is a party
affected by the allegedly unauthorized construction carried out and/or being
carried out by the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners also refers to the judgment of a
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Madhur Krishan Dhingra vs.
D.M.C. North & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 13129 and requests for
clarification that respondent no. 2 shall be granted only restrictive hearing
and not hearing as a party to the proceedings. That is obvious. The basic
principle laid down in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta (supra) is that no
third party can join the statutory appeal under DMC Act, which appeal is
between the aggrieved persons and the MCD, so what is being permitted is
only restrictive hearing before the ATMCD.
8. In view of above discussion, I am unable to find any infirmity in the
impugned order, so the same is upheld and the petition as well as the
accompanying applications are dismissed.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.17 17:40:01 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
'rs'
CM(M) 2193/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
