Umed Singh and Ors. v. Sri Chand Fleria and Ors.

1. The present is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking exemption from filing original and certified copies of documents.

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The plaintiffs shall file the original and certified copies of the documents, whenever the same is required.

4. Application stands disposed of. CCP(O) 62/2026

5. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the defendants against the plaintiffs/contemnors for wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 15th April, 2026 passed by this Court, wherein, in paragraph 28, it was clarified that the construction, if authorized, may continue and be completed, however, no third-party rights shall be created or possession of the suit land shall be parted with.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that despite the same, the plaintiffs herein filed a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (“SDM”), Mundka against the defendants herein as if the defendants were carrying out the unauthorized constructions in the suit property.

7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, who has handed over to this Court a letter dated 23rd April, 2026, issued by the Assistant Engineer (Building), Narela Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”). The said letter is reproduced as under:

8. By referring to the aforesaid letter, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the construction, being carried out by the defendants was unauthorized, on account of which, the same has been booked by the MCD.

9. This Court notes that vide order dated 15th April, 2026, this Court had categorically recorded that the construction in the suit property can be carried out by the defendants herein only if the same is authorized. Paragraph 28 of the order dated 15th April, 2026 is reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

10. Thus, in case, the construction carried out by the defendants is unauthorized and the same already stands booked, no contempt can be said to have been carried out by the plaintiffs.

11. This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the defendants that a copy of the letter from the MCD with regard to the unauthorized construction has never been received by them.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Israr Ahmad Khan Versus Amarnath Prasad and Ors., MANU/SC/0203/2026, and in particular relies upon paragraph 24 of the same, which is reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

13. This Court takes notes of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Israr Ahmad Khan (Supra), as relied upon by the defendants, wherein, it is categorically stated that while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court has to assess as to whether the decision, of which contempt is alleged, has been complied with or not.

14. In the present case, it is clear that the construction in the suit property was allowed to be carried out by the defendants herein only if the same was authorized. Since, it has come on record before this Court that the construction being carried out by the defendants was unauthorized, no case of contempt can be made out against the plaintiffs. Rather, by carrying out such an act of authorized construction, the defendants are the ones, who have not complied with the directions of this Court.

15. Be that as it may, since it has come on record before this Court that the construction being carried out by the defendants was in the nature of unauthorized construction, no construction can be carried out by the defendants in the suit property, and the plaintiffs cannot be considered to be in contempt of the order dated 15th April, 2026, passed by this Court.