Aditya Goel v. Joginder Singh & Ors.

1. Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court.

2. He filed a civil suit against four defendants, including Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Jal Board seeking permanent and mandatory injunction.

3. According to plaintiff, his neighbours, defendant Nos.[1] and 2 were raising construction by amalgamating two plots. He claimed that such amalgamation was not permissible as per the by-laws of the CM(M) 45/2024 2 MCD. It was also contended that there was encroachment of the public land as well.

4. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC had also been filed by the plaintiff and when said application was disposed of by the learned Trial court on 03.11.2023, the learned Trial Court allowed the aforesaid application by restraining the defendants from raising any further unauthorized construction till disposal of the suit.

5. Such order was challenged in appeal by the contesting defendant.

6. Such appeal was registered as 6 MCA DJ ADJ 63/23 titled as “Joginder Singh vs. Aditya Goel” and it was received by the learned First Appellate Court on 05.01.2024 and on the same day, without even issuing any notice to anyone, much less the plaintiff in whose favour the above said injunction application had already been decided, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 03.11.2023 and consigned the appeal to Record Room.

7. Such order dated 05.01.2024 is under challenge.

8. Such disposal is neither in consonance with the established procedure nor adheres to principles of natural justice. Even if the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 was not looking sustainable, the First Appellate Court could have easily stayed the operation of the impugned order, while also simultaneously, issuing notice to the other sides including plaintiff. CM(M) 45/2024 3

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has also restricted his grievance in the present petition merely to the effect that without issuing notice to the other side, the appeal could not have been disposed of, more so to the detriment and prejudice to the plaintiff.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/MCD is present and learned counsel for respondent No.4/Delhi Jal Board also appears through video conferencing. Learned counsel for contesting respondents is also present.

11. Quite evidently, learned First Appellate Court fell into a grave procedural error.

12. It is also noticed that when this petition was taken up by this Court on 09.01.2024, the contesting defendants i.e. respondent Nos.[1] and 2 were restrained to carry out further construction on said property i.e. B-1, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59. Such order continues to be in operation even as on date.

13. Keeping in mind the abovesaid peculiar position, this Court is not required to delve deeper into the merits and demerits of the appeal filed by respondent Nos.[1] and 2.

14. The sole question which falls for consideration is that whether the appeal could have been allowed in such a hasty and summary manner, without even issuing notice to the opposite side. Even if the result would have been, eventually, the same, learned First Appellate CM(M) 45/2024 4 Court should have, at least, issued notice of the appeal before taking any final call.

15. The abovesaid glaring perversity compels this Court to invoke its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the above said order passed by the learned First Appellate Court is, hereby, set aside and the aforesaid appeal stands restored to its original number and position. The learned First Appellate Court would decide the aforesaid appeal, after giving due opportunity to all concerned.