Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 496 (DEL)

L. N. JAGGI v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

2000-07-03

MUKUL MUDGAL

body2000
MUKULMUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1992, seeking for a decree ofpermanent injunction and declaration in respect of the suit premises No. B-71, Greaterkailash Part-1, New Delhi. ( 2 ) IT is stated that on 10/12/1980, the plaintiffs have purchased theproperty No. B-71, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi, measuring approximately 1,000 sq. yds. by means of a Regular Sale Deed dated 8. 12. 1980. ( 3 ) THE name of defendant No. 2 has already been dieted from the array of partiesvide Order dated 21/07/1997. The matter was proceeded ex-parte againstdefendaqt No. 1 vide Order dated 17/07/1995. Thereafter the plaintiffs have filedtheir evidonce by way of affidavit on-151. 11. 1997, 11. 2. 1999 and 17. 9. 1999. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff No. 1, Mr. L. N. Jaggi who is one of the co-owners of the suitproperty, has fited evidence by way of affictavit dated 11/11/1997 on behalfof all the plaintiffs. The averments made in the plaint have been supported by the saidaffidavit. The plaintiff has averred in the above-said affidavit that the repairs werecarried out strictly in accordance with Bye-lgws No. 6. 4. 1 of the Building Bye-laws,1983 which require no sanction. The plaintiff No. 1 accordingly says that the repairswere carried out strictly in accordance with the Building Bye-laws. The plaintiff isaccordingly entitled to a decree. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff No. 1 has averred in Para 15 of the said affidavit that neither theplaintiffs nor any other member of their family received any show Cause Notice fordemolition or for sealing of the suit premises. The plaintiff No. 1 has further averredthat neither any such Notice was ever served on the plaintiffs nor were they given anyopportunity of hearing. ( 6 ) THE plaintiffs have proved the following documents: SI. No. Descriptionexhibit Nos. 1. Sale Deed dated 8. 12. 80ex. PW-12. Site Planex. PW-23. Application dated 10. 3. 81ex. PW-34. Letter dated 25. 3. 82ex. PW-45. Letter dated 21. 1. 92ex. PW-56. Letter dated 24. 3. 82ex. PW-67. Order of DCP (licensing) dated 29. 8. 1991ex. PW-78. Inspection Report from MCD dated 30. 7. 1962ex. PW-89. Letter dated 5. 1. 81 from FCIEx. PW-910. Letter dt. 16. 12. 81 from D. C. P. (licensing)Ex. PW-1011. Letter dt. 12. 3. 83ex. PW-1112. Letter dt. 23. 3. 95ex. PW-1213. License dt. 3. 8. 98ex. Letter dated 24. 3. 82ex. PW-67. Order of DCP (licensing) dated 29. 8. 1991ex. PW-78. Inspection Report from MCD dated 30. 7. 1962ex. PW-89. Letter dated 5. 1. 81 from FCIEx. PW-910. Letter dt. 16. 12. 81 from D. C. P. (licensing)Ex. PW-1011. Letter dt. 12. 3. 83ex. PW-1112. Letter dt. 23. 3. 95ex. PW-1213. License dt. 3. 8. 98ex. PW-13 ( 7 ) BY their affidavit of evidence and the documents exhibited, the plaintiffs haveproved the averments made in the plaint. Thus there is no rebuttal of these pleas. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the suit is decreed. A Decree of permanent injunction is passed infavour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant restraining the defendant, theiremployees, officials, officers, agents, assignees, contractors etc. from undertakingany demolition and/or sealing action against the suit property and/or disconnectingwater and/or electricity supply to the suit premises No. B-71, Greater Kailash-l, Newdelhi (as shown in Site Plan, Ex. P-2 at Page 46 of the Documents File) except byfollowing the due process of the law applicable and observing the principles ofnatural justice by giving an prior opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. There shall beno orders as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. The suit is accordingly disposed of.