BEFORE THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL CHAUDHARY, ADJ,

ROHINI COURT, NEW DELHI

I.A No. OF 2019
IN

R F A NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Nidhi Monga ....Applicant/

Appellant

VS

Smt. Chander Kanta & Anr .... Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908 ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT/APPELLANT FOR SEEKING DIRECTIONS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant/ appellant had filed an Regular first appeal against the
Impugned judgment/Order dated 23.7.2019 in the Civil Suit for declaration
and permanent injunction bearing No. 62467 of 2016 titled as “Smt.
Chander Kanta Vs. Smt. Nidhi Monga & Anr. passed by the Ld. Additional
Senior Civil Judge cum Judge, Small Causes Court cum Guardian Judge,
North-West District, Rohini, Delhi. whereby granting entitlement to the
Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 to the possession of the 2 nd floor alongwith
terrace of the suit property i.e of flat bearing No. C-7/53A, Keshav Puram,
New Delhi along with terrace of the suit property and the Appellant
herein/Defendant No.1 is directed to handover the peaceful and vacant
 possession of the 2nd floor alongwith terrace of the suit property and
further, the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages/mesne
profit of Rs. 1,55,000/- each both the defendants(including Petitioner).
Copy of aforesaid Impugned judgment/Order dated 23.7.2019 is hereto
annexed as Annexure-1

2. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant has a prima facie case in her
favour as the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2019 suffers from serious
legal infirmities and perverse findings of material facts and thus it deserves
to be set aside.

3. That the aforementioned Appeal was filed on 07.09.2019 and the matter
came up for hearing on 11.09.2019 and was heard. Whereby, this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to issue notice. Further, this Hon’ble Court fixed this
matter for 15.10.2019.

4. That under above enumerated circumstances the Applicant prays for that
because the respondent is trying to evict the applicant from the suit
premises by using their illicit tactics and muscle power for which the
respondent is not entitled to until and unless the matter is pending before
this Hon’ble Court. In fact, On 13.09.2019 two unknown muscle man
tried to enter the property in question to harass the Appellant by using
their arm twisting tactics to coerce the Appellant to vacate the premises in
question.

5. Furthermore, the decreed suit property wherein, the Applicant is residing

with her two minor children is her matrimonial home. whereby, she has
been living ever since she got married to respondent No. 2. However, the
Respondent 1, (mother-in-law of Applicant) with the connivance of the
 Respondent No. 2 wants to disposes the Appellant and her minor children
from her matrimonial home.

6. It is respectfully submitted that the Ld. JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (North West),

Rohini Courts,Delhi has erred in holding that the Appellant/defendant
No.1 is the daughter in law of plaintiff, therefore, she has no legal right to
live in the suit property which is owned by the plaintiff. It is submitted that
Appellant along with her children are staying at IInd floor along with
terrace ie. at C-7/53-B(2nd floor/floor on the roof), Keshav Puram, Delhi-
110035 which is above C-7/53A(First floor), Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035
and the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 is not the owner of the premises/floor
where the Appellant is staying. Further, the Appellant is residing at her
matrimonial home where she came with her husband after marriage and
residing from last 13 years approximately. Thus, the impugned order is
perverse and not maintainable.

7. It is submitted that the Respondent No.02(Appellant’s husband) who is the

son of Respondent No.1/plaintiff with the connivance of Respondent No.1
left the home without any intimation and reason just to avoid his duty and
liability of the children and the Appellant. It is further submitted that the
Respondent No.1/plaintiff with the connivance of the Respondent No.2 file
the Suit bearing No. C.S. No. 62467/16 against the Appellant. On this
ground alone the impugned judgment/order should be set aside.

8. That the Appellant is suffering from various problem like financial problem
because that the only source of maintaining herself and their children was
income from Respondent No.02, inspire the order of the maintenance which
is dully awarded by the by the Hon’ble Mahila Court wherein till today no
maintenance has been paid to the Appellant. The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff
 only with the motive to harass the Appellant with her minor children so that
they may be able to throw out on the road from her property and to compel
her to give the divorce to the Respondent No.2. Moreover, the Respondent
No. 2 has been declared absconded by the Hon’ble Mahila Court.

9. It is further submitted that the premises in question was built by the

Appellant and Respondent No.2 from their earned money and now the
Respondent No.1/plaintiff with the connivance of the Respondent No.2
wants to dispossess the Appellant and her children from the matrimonial
home and connivance of the Respondent No.1/plaintiff can be seen that on
the one side the Respondent No.1/plaintiff is stating that she has debarred
the Respondent No-02 and on the other side keeping the Respondent No-02
with her and even not stating about the single words in respect of the shop
and rather helping Respondent No.02 to keep away the Appellant from the
said shop and also stopped the entry of the Appellant into the shop, hence,
the entire impugned judgment is perverse and liable to be set aside.

10. It is submitted that the property/Flat Bearing No. C-7/53-A on First Floor
Situated at Lawrence Road, Delhi 110035 and Shop No. 7, Block C-7, Local
Shopping Centre, D.D.A. Market, Lawrence Road, Delhi 110035 are HUF
properties and late father-in-law of the Appellant was the Karta and as such
the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff is not the owner of the said property. It is
further submitted that the said properties are HUF properties of Late Jugal
Kishor Monga, Appellant’s father-in-law, and as such after his demise, the
said properties are jointly held amongst the legal heirs.

11. It is submitted that the Respondent No.02(Appellant’s husband) who is the

son of Respondent No.1/plaintiff with the connivance of Respondent
No.1/plaintiff left the home without any intimation and reason just to avoid
 his duty and liability of the children and the Appellant and harass them. It is
further submitted that the Respondent No.1/plaintiff with the connivance of
the Respondent No.2 file the Suit bearing No. C.S. No. 62467/16 against
the Appellant. On this ground alone the impugned judgment/order should
be set aside.

12. That the Appellant is suffering from various problem like financial problem
because that the only source of maintaining herself and their children was
income from Respondent No.02, inspire the order of the maintenance which
is dully awarded by the by the Hon’ble Mahila Court wherein till today no
maintenance has been paid to the Appellant. The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff
only with the motive to harass the Appellant with her minor children so that
they may be able to throw out on the road from her property and to compel
her to give the divorce to the Respondent No.2.

13. It is further submitted that the premises in question was built by the
Appellant and Respondent No.2 from their earned money and now the
Respondent No.1/plaintiff with the connivance of the Respondent No.2
wants to dispossess the Appellant and her children from the matrimonial
home and connivance of the Respondent No.1/plaintiff can be seen that on
the one side the Respondent No.1/plaintiff is stating that she has debarred
the Respondent No.02 and on the other side keeping the Respondent No-02
with her and even not stating about the single words in respect of the shop
and rather helping Respondent No.02 to keep away the Appellant from the
said shop and also stopped the entry of the Appellant into the shop, hence,
the entire impugned judgment is perverse and liable to be set aside.

14. It is respectfully submitted that there are serious contradictions in the finding
of the Ld. Judge about the material fact of case. The Ld. Trial Court has
 erred in not appreciating the fact that the matrimonial home is a shared
household and the Appellant is protected under Section 17 of the Prevention
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Ld. Lower Court
imposing damages/mesne profit of Rs. 1,55,000/- p.m is totally unjustified
and unwarranted, on this point altogether the impugned judgments suffers
from legal infirmity.

15. It is submitted that the impugned judgment/decree dated 23.07.2019 passed

by the Ld. Trial Court is bad in law and its operation should be stayed
during the pendency of the appeal otherwise the poor lady with two school
going children will suffer irreparable damage and loss as she has no other
place to go if she is rendered homeless. Otherwise, the Respondent(s) will
not stop using their malafide and illicit tactics to disposes the Applicant.

16. It is submitted that thus there is an urgency to take immediate stay against
the operation of the impugned judgment/decree dated 23.07.2019 passed by
the Ld. Trial Court, otherwise the appellant will rendered remediless, if the
interim relief is not granted.

PRAYER:-

In view of the facts and circumstance of the appeal it is respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

a) Pass an Ex Parte Ad-Interim stay order for staying the judgment/Order dated
23.7.2019 in the Suit No. 62467 of 2016 titled as “Smt. Chander Kanta Vs.
Smt. Nidhi Monga & Anr.” passed by the Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge
 cum Judge, Small Causes Court cum Guardian Judge, North-West District,
Rohini, Delhi, and” and any subsequent coercive action in pursuance of the
impugned order, if any, during the pendency of this appeal;

b) Further, Grant Status quo of the property in question to the applicant,

c) Restrain the respondent from illegally dispossessing the applicant from her
matrimonial home

d) Pass an order for dasti summon/ Notice upon the Respondents

c) Pass any order or further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

Through

Place: New Delhi Appellant/petitioner

 BEFORE THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL CHAUDHARY,ADJ,
ROHINI COURT, NEW DELHI
I.A No. OF 2019
IN
R F A NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Nidhi Monga ....Applicant/

Appellant

VS

Smt. Chander Kanta & Anr ...Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nidhi Monga, W/o. Shri. Desh Deepak Monga, R/O. C-7/53 B, Keshav
Puram, IInd Floor, Delhi-110035., aged about 37 years, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the appellant/Petitioner in the above mentioned appeal, hence

conversant with the facts and circumstance of this case and competent to
swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted under my instruction and the
contents of same are believed to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and information.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on this day of September 2019 at New Delhi that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL CHAUDHARY,ADJ,
ROHINI COURT, NEW DELHI
R FA NO. OF 2019
IN
I.A NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Nidhi Monga, …Appellant/
Applicant
VS.
Smt. Chander Kanta & Anr. …Respondents

INDEX

SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES NO.

1. Application u/s 151 cpc on behalf of

the Applicant for seeking Directions
alongwith affidavit

2. Annexure 1
Copy of impugned judgement dated
23.07.2019

DATED: APPELLANT
DELHI: THROUGH
MOB.9711938098

Vaibhav Kharbanda
Advocate
M-2, Basement,
Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi-48
 BEFORE THE COURT OF LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
G.P NO. 41 OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Tej Kapoor …Petitioner

VS.
Smt. Mahima Nanda Kapoor …Respondent/
Applicant

INDEX

SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES NO.

1. Vakalatnama 1

DATED: 27.01.2020

Respondent
DELHI THROUGH

Jaikush Hoon
Dematrali Legal
Advocate
C-511, Basement,
C.R Park,
New Delhi-19