IN 

THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL ­03:  TIS HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI 

MCA No.18/21

North Delhi Municipal Corporation 
Through its Commissioner
Civic Center, S.P. Mukherjee Marg
Minto Road, New Delhi ­110002
.....Appellant
Vs.

MCD  Market Traders Association
Through its General Secretary
Sh. Harish Chitkara
Having its office at :­
Basement Parking MCD, Saraswati Marg, 
Karol Bagh, New Delhi ­110005
    …....Respondent
 
Date of institution of the appeal  : 24.08.2020
Date on which order was reserved :  27.09.2021
Date of decision            :  09.10.2021

JUDGMENT
1. The   present   appeal   filed   by  the   appellant/   defendant   assails   the
order dated 31.07.2021 and 11.08.2021 in suit no. 1570/2021 passed by
Ld. ASCJ(Central) Delhi. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
referred by their original status.

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 1/10

2. The  factual  matrix of  the  case  is that  the  Plaintiff,  a  registered
society filed the suit  for  mandatory and permanent injunction thereby
restraining defendant i.e. MCD from taking any action on the basis of
impugned order dated 23.07.2021 passed under Section 349 of the DMC
Act. They  had also filed application under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2
CPC seeking the same relief.
2.1 It is further submitted that the MCD  built a multistoried complex
at Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
“Complex”) having parking in the basement, shops at ground floor and
offices at first, second, third and fourth floor for conducting commercial
activities.  The Complex is the source of livelihood for its occupants and
their   family   members.   It   was   the   duty   of   the   MCD   to   maintain   the
premises and to keep it in good and habitable condition instead it wanted
to handover this Complex to the private builder for construction of some
superstructure  and  earn  money  out  of  it.    With such  malice  intention
MCD   initiated   proceedings   for   getting   the   Complex   vacated   under
section 349 of the DMC Act on the basis of some report given by IIT,
Roorkee. The MCD had also not mentioned as to how and in what time it
would handover the possession back to the occupants and no personal
hearing was granted to the plaintiff before passing the said order.

3. Vide exparte order  dated  31.07.2021 MCD  was restrained from

taking   any   coercive   action   against   the   members   of   the   Complex   as

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 2/10

mentioned in the list and simultaneously summons for judgment were
issued to the defendant, returnable for 05.08.2021. MCD entered their
appearance and application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was moved
on their behalf for vacating the exparte stay which was dismissed vide
order dated 11.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal
has been filed.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:­ 
4. It   is   contended   by   the   appellants   that   Ld.   Trial   Court   failed   to
appreciate that the respondent herein has no locus to file the suit as it is
neither   the   registered   society   nor   the   suit   has   been   signed   by   the
authorized person;  that  appellant approached the Ld. Trial Court with
application   under   XXXIX   (4)   of   CPC   to   bring   into   notice   all   the
misleading averments of the plaintiff by which it succeeded in getting
exparte stay and the view of the Ld. Trial Court that no averment for
false and misleading statement of the plaintiff has been agitated by the
appellant   is   misplaced;   that   the   respondent   has   willfully   and   with
malafide intentions tried to mislead the court by not placing on record the
letter   dated   26.03.2021   wherein  it  was   submitted   that   the   roof   of   the
building   has   completely   degraded   and   debris   were   falling   on   the
shopkeepers   as   well   as   customers;   that  the   Ld.  Trial   Court  miserably
failed to appreciate that the building in question is a public property and
it   may   fall   any   day   thereby   causing   immense   hardship   not   only   to

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 3/10

respondent but to public at large; that the Ld. Trial Court has miserably
failed to appreciate that the building needs to be vacated immediately and
sealed for the safety of the public; that various incidents of falling of
debris and chunks from the building have taken place in the past and in
the recent time also; that the safety of the public at large cannot be put to
jeopardy   by   the   vested   interests   of   certain   individuals   who   want   to
continue to occupy the premises at the peril of safety and security of the
public  at  large;  that  the  exparte  order   dated  31.07.2021  needed  to  be
vacated immediately in view of the imminent danger to the life of the
people working in the market as well as visitors; that the Ld. Trial Court
erred   in   passing   the   impugned   order   dated   11.08.2021   on   basis   of
pendency of W.P. (C)  No. 7417/2021 titled as Rohit Sakhuja vs. North
DMC before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein no notice has been
issued; that Ld. Trial Court again erred in dismissing the application of
the petitioner herein on the ground of livelihood of number of families;
that   Ld.   Trial   Court   erred   in   passing   the   impugned   order   dated
11.08.2021   on   the   ground   of   pendency   of   injunction   application   of
respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC; that Ld.
Trial Court failed to appreciate that North DMC had already taken steps
for the purpose of rehabilitation of the members of the respondent and
three sites have  also been identified for their rehabilitation; that the Ld.
Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the Department of Earthquake
Engineering,   IIT   Roorkee   has   clearly   indicated   that   the   structure   in

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 4/10

question has deteriorated in its various reports; that the Ld. Trial Court
has committed grave error in staying order dated 23.07.2021 vide exparte
order   dated   31.07.2021;   that   the   impugned   order   was   passed   on   the
erroneous ground that no personal hearing was granted to the respondents
herein   before   passing   any   order;     that   the   Ld.   Trial   Court   failed   to
appreciate   that   individual   notices   were   issued   to   all   the   occupiers   of
Municipal   Market,   Saraswati   Marg,   Karol   Bagh   subsequent   to   which
caveats were also registered in the Courts despite that Order was passed
without service to the appellant.

5. Notice   of   the   present   appeal   was   served   upon   the   respondent.

Respondent contested the present appeal by filing detailed reply taking
preliminary   objection   to   the   effect   that   the   present   appeal   is   not
maintainable since application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is
still   pending   disposal;   that   the   appellant   acted   in   haste   by   filing   the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC without filing the written
statement.
5.1 In  reply on  merits,  respondent  has  specifically  denied  each  and
every averments and has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

6.  The Trial Court records was summoned and perused. I have heard
counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 5/10

7.   The Plaintiff, a registered society filed the suit for mandatory and
permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant i.e. MCD from taking
any action on the basis of order dated 23.07.2021 passed under Section
349 of the DMC Act. Vide said order MCD asked the occupants of the
Complex   to   vacate   the  premises   on  the   basis   of   report  given   by  IIT,
Roorkee. The grievance of the Plaintiff society was that they were not
served with any such report given by IIT Roorkee and without serving
any   prior   notice   and   without   any   personal   hearing.     Their   further
grievance   was   that   they   were   not   given   any   timeline   about   the
construction   of   the   Complex   nor   they   were   provided   with   any
rehabilitation scheme. They further alleged that the MCD failed in its
duty   to   keep   the   Complex   in   good   shape   despite   collecting   the
maintenance charges and further they have not done anything for repair
and reinforcement of the building.   Considering their said submissions,
the   Plaintiff   society   was   granted   exparte   stay   vide   order   dated
31.07.2021.   On the next date, MCD   filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the exparte stay along with  written
statement.   Vide   order   dated   11.08.2021,   the   application   under   Order
XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was dismissed observing therein “Keeping in view,
the   pendency   of   W.P.   ©   No.   7417/21   titled   as   “Rohit   Sakuja   Versus
North   MCD”   with   next   date   of   hearing   as   03.09.2021,   connected
livelihood of number of families from the suit property, no averment in
present application for false or misleading statement by the plaintiff and

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 6/10

pendency of injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC,
this Court do not find any ground to vacate the order dated 31.07.2021”.
It   was   also   observed   that   “the   Court   prefer   to   not   to   give   detailed
observations   on   above   mentioned   points   and   confines   itself   to   the
application   under   Order   39   Rule   4   CPC   and   the   specific   grounds
therein.” The MCD challenged the said Order broadly on the ground that
the plaintiff mislead the Court by not placing the letter dated 26.03.2021
and further that the Ld. Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate that
the building in question  is a public property and  it may fall any day
thereby causing immense hardship not only to respondent but to public at
large and  that the Complex needed to be vacated immediately in view of
the imminent danger to the life of the people working in the market as
well as visitors. The MCD further contended that the Ld. Trial Court
failed   to   appreciate   that   North   DMC   had   already   taken   steps   for   the
purpose of rehabilitation of the members of the respondent and three sites
have   also been identified for their rehabilitation or that the Ld. Trial
Court   erred   in   not   appreciating   that   the   Department   of   Earthquake
Engineering,   IIT   Roorkee   has   clearly   indicated   that   the   structure   in
question has deteriorated in its various reports.

8. The   present   appeal   has   been   filed   against   the   dismissal   of   the
application   under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   4   CPC.   For   the   sake   of
convenience, Rule 4 is reproduced below:­

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 7/10

 “4.  Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or
set aside­­ any order for an injunction may be discharged, or
varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto
by any party dissatisfied with such order:
[Provided   that   if   in   an   application   for   temporary
injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application a
party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in
relation   to   a   material   particular   and   the   injunction   was
granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court
shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded,
it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of
justice:
Provided   further   that   where   an   order   for   injunction
has  been  passed  after  giving to  a party  an  opportunity  of
being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set
aside   on   the   application   of   that   party   except   where   such
discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by
a   change   in   the   circumstances,   or   unless   the   Court   is
satisfied   that   the   order   has   caused   undue   hardship   to   the
party]”

9. This rule covers the discharge, variations etc. of an injunction (1)
passed exaprte and also (2) of an injunction already in force which is
operating harshly or which needs reconsideration. But the previous order
cannot be reopened except on the presentation of some new matter which
was not available when the original order was passed. The fact about the
dilapidated   condition   of   the   Complex   has   not   been   concealed   by   the
Plaintiff rather they had asked for its renovation and reinforcement.  The
appellant   failed   to   produce   any   document   to   show   that   the   Plaintiff
society was having the knowledge of the report given by the IIT Roorkee

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 8/10

or   that   they   were   having   the   knowledge   of   the   rehabilitation   scheme
proposed by the MCD. The question regarding the fragile condition of
the Complex was not being considered by Ld. Trial Court while deciding
application   under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   4   CPC.   Rather   there   was   no
occasion for Ld. Trial Court to consider the bulky report filed by the
MCD since the question under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC is specific to
“false or misleading statements in relation of material particulars”.  It is
pertinent to note hear that application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
is still pending disposal and it is only while deciding that application that
the Court will consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss.

10. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel
for the appellant that the dismissal of application under Order XXXIX
Rule 4 CPC tantamounts to allowing the application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC. I did not concur with this since the impugned order
itself states that application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is
still pending disposal. The parties are standing in appeal herein and there
is no reason   for considering documents at this stage which were not
considered by the Ld. Trial Court.  The contents of the written statement
were not considered by the Ld. Trial Court while deciding the application
under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and hence they can not become the
scope of this appeal before this Court.  

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 9/10

CONCLUSION
11. In view of abovesaid reasons, I find no infirmity or irregularity  in
the   impugned   order   and     appeal   filed   by   the   appellant   is   hereby
dismissed. The order dated 31.07.2021 and 11.08.2021 stands confirmed.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial court alongwith trial
court record.  File of the present appeal be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date: 2021.10.09
04:56:57 +0200

Typed to the dictation directly          (Geetanjali)

corrected and pronounced in  Ld. ADJ­03, Central
the open court on this 9th Day        THC/Delhi/09.10.2021
of October 2021

MCA DJ No. 18/2021 Page No. 10/10