Delhi High Court
Virender Chawla & Anr vs Naresh & Ors on 18 November, 2025
$~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.
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 192/2025 Page 1
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 appellants/ plaintiffs are in
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 192/2025 Page 2
possession of the property. The relevant portion of Annexure A-
12 reads thus:-
".....
11. Further, tehsildar was directed to submit field report as per
revenue record. As per report received from tehsildar of
Rajouri Garden it is seen that the disputed area falls in khasra
no. 26 which is in Laldora area. It has been informed that at the
time of field visit of Tehsildar, first party was found in
possession of the disputed property. Statement of 02 witnesses
has also been submitted according to which first party has
possession of disputed property wz-5, Titarpur, Delhi.
12. First party has submitted that he has filed an injunction suit
petition in honorable court. The copy of petition has been
produced by first party. He has also submitted that the case
filed by second party is not a title suit.
13. From the contention made above by both the parties it is
clear that on the date of receipt of police information i.e.
Kalandara dated 25.07.2020 received on 05.08.2020, First
party was in possession of the disputed site wz-S, Titarpur,
Delhi. The dispute arose mainly when first party put barricade
to start construction at the site for which first party has also
taken prior permission from MCD. As per field report of
Tehsildr (Rajouri Garden) the present possession is with First
Party. The temple of Balmiki Mandir is still located at the site.
14. Thus the question left before this court u/s 145 CrPC is that
whether second party has been forcibly dispossessed from the
suit property within two months next before the date on which
the report of a police officer or other information was received
by this court.
18. From available facts of the case and submission made by
both the party I am of the opinion that first party has been in
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 192/2025 Page 3
possession of disputed property bearing no. WZ-5 Titarpur,
Delhi on the date of kalandara and date of order u/s 145(1)
Cr.PC and two months before it. Hence the kalandara under
145 is dropped...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. This order is seen apparently made after the suit herein
was filed on 27.07.2020 by the appellants/plaintiffs claiming title
over the property based on several registered deeds. They alleged
that the respondents/defendants were trying to disturb their
peaceful possession. The question whether the appellants/
plaintiffs have obtained title of the property, is a matter that needs
to be decided in trial, after necessary oral and documentary
evidence are adduced by the rival claimants. Therefore, till the
disposal of the matter, the subject matter of the property needs to
be preserved and the interest of both sides to be protected.
8. Apart from Annexure A-12, there is no other material
presently before this Court to ascertain the state of affairs existing
in the property. Annexure A-12 shows that the appellants/
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 192/2025 Page 4
plaintiffs are in possession of the property. It is submitted that the
said order has not been challenged till date. In these circumstances,
the impugned order is set aside and the respondents/defendants are
restrained from interfering with the appellants'/plaintiffs'
possession and enjoyment of the property, till the disposal of the
suit.
9. It is made clear that both sides shall not create any third
party interest in the property. If any constructions are required to
be done, it shall be strictly in accordance with the permit that is
stated to have been granted by the authority concerned to the
appellants/plaintiffs.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 18, 2025
kd/er
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 192/2025 Page 5
