IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTT.

NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO._____________/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. BIJENDER,
S/O SH. DAMBAR SINGH,
R/O H.NO.J-10, SHRI RAM J.J. CAMP,
NANAKPURA, NEW DELHI-110021
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER,
S.P. MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE,
J.L.NEHRU MARG,
NEW DELHI

2.

THE S.H.O.,
P.S. SOUTH CAMPUS,
NEW DELHI

DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.

That

citizen

the plaintiff is the law abiding

of

country

and

residing

with

his

family since 2000 and in possession of Jhuggi

No.CN-767, Near
Dard

Road,

(hereinafter

Delhi Jal Board Store, Mir

Minto

called

Road,
the

suit

New

Delhi,

property)

and

shown in Red colour in the site plan annexed

herewith.

2.

That

the

plaintiff

is

pump

operator

upon a pump situated at Mirdard Road, Minto

Road,

Delhi

Jal

Board

Store,

New

Delhi,

through contractor Sh. Ravi Goel/ defendant

from

17.03.2004

continuously

and

provided

the
the

plaintiff
service

has

upon

the

said pump till filing of the present suit

without any complaint by any one.

3.

That

the

plaintiff

has

received

the

handsome salary from the defendant according

to

the

provided

labour
his

law.

service

The
to

plaintiff

Delhi

Jal

has
Board

through a contractor and the plaintiff also

doing the overtime in respect of which the
plaintiff has also received extra payment for
this extra work throughout the course of the
employment with the defendant. The plaintiff
always

continue

to

work

hard

sincerely and diligently the duty.

honestly,

4.

That

the

contractor

defendant

in

Delhi

is

Jal

the
Board

registered
and

the

defendant No.2 had appointed to the plaintiff

as per the guidelines of the Labour Law.

5.

That on 05.03.2012 at about 12.00 a.m.

the defendant alongwith other gunda elements

namely Sh. Shoib Iqbal, who is called himself
to the M.L.A. and Idrish and Mohttram with
the connivance of local police of P.S. I.P.
Estate, New Delhi. The defendant has given
the threat to the plaintiff to demolish and
dispossession

the

property,

with

plaintiff

and

plaintiff
the

his

from

the

suit

that

the

members

had

statement
family

illegally occupied the Jhuggi and they also

stated that, you vacate the suit property,
otherwise you face the dire consequences.

6.

That

on

22.04.2012

and

29.04.2012

the

defendant along with his gunda elements again

reached the suit property and threatened to

spoil

the

life

of

the

plaintiff

and

his

family members, otherwise you hand over the

peaceful possession of the suit property to
the defendant.

7.

That on 26.04.2012 the plaintiff had also

made a complaint in respect of

the threat

given by the defendant No.2 before the higher

police

official

Police,

S.H.O.

i.e.
of

the

P.S.

Commissioner
I.P.

Estate,

of
and

Chowki Incharge, L.N.J.P. Hospital, New Delhi

and also sent the demand notice under labour
law dated 28.04.2012 to the defendant along
with copy to Lt. Governor of Delhi, Labour
Secretary

etc.

The

said

notice

has

also

served the defendant and the defendant had

given a false and frivolous reply of the said
notice through his counsel Sh. Rahul Sharma,
Advocate,

Chamber

No.E-511,

Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi, by way of Speed Post with the

signed of the defendant.

In this reply the

defendant had admittedly partly the facts of

the legal notice of the plaintiff and partly

denied

with

the

copies

of

legal

notice

the

ulterior

complaint
dated

motives.
dated

The

26.04.2012,

28.04.2012

to

the

defendant and its postal receipts, the reply

dated 11.05.2012 of the legal notice are also
annexed herewith.

8.

That

on

defendant

15.05.2012

came

to

the

at
suit

12.30

p.m.

property

the

along

with his musslemen and started to beating the

plaintiff mercilessly and tried to dispossess
the

plaintiff

thrown

the

from

household

the

suit

articles,

property
but

at

by
the

time the nephew of the plaintiff, his wife

and children are present there at that time
and due to this reason the defendant could
not succeed to achieve his nefarious goal.

9.

That

the

plaintiff

has

no

efficacious

remedy except to file the present suit before

this Honble Court.

10. That the cause of action in favour of the

plaintiff

and

05.03.2012

against

when

the

the

defendant

defendant

on

illegally

terminated the plaintiff from his service and

tried

to

dispossess

the

plaintiff

and

his

family members from the suit property. The

cause of action further arose on 22.04.2012
when

the

defendant

along

with

the

police

official came to the suit property and tried

to

dispossess

property.

the

The

plaintiff

cause

of

from

action

the

suit

arose

on

26.04.2012 when the plaintiff had also made a

complaint in respect of

the threat given by

the

the

defendant

before

higher

police

officials. The cause of action further arosae

when on 28.04.2012 when the plaintiff sent
the

demand

further

notice.

arose

on

The

cause

11.05.2012

of

action

when

the

defendant had sent the reply to the legal

notice dated 28.04.2012.
further

arose

when the
along

on

The cause of action

15.05.2012

at

12.30

p.m.

defendant came to the suit property

with

his

musslemen

and

started

to

beating the plaintiff mercilessly and tried

to

dispossess

property.

the

The

plaintiff

cause

of

from

action

the
is

suit
still

continues and subsists.

11. That the valuation of the suit for the

purpose

of

Rs.130/-

court

for

Injunction
Mandatory

fee

the

and

and

relief

Rs.130/-

Injunction.

for
The

jurisdiction
of

is

Permanent

the

relief

requisite

of

court

fee has been affixed on the plaint.

12. That

the

suit

property

is

situated

at

Delhi and the cause of action has arisen at

Delhi

and

hence

this

Honble

Court

has

jurisdiction to try and entertain the present

suit.
P R A Y E R:

In view of the above and in the interest

of

justice,

under:-

it

is

therefore,

prayed

as

(i) That decree of Permanent Injunction may

kindly

be

plaintiff
thereby

passed
and

in

favour

against

restraining

of

the

the

the

defendant

defendant,

his

assignees, servants, agents etc. from the

dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
property

i.e.

Delhi

Jal

Minto

Road,

Chuggi

Board

No.CN-767,

Store,

New

Mirdard

Delhi,

and

Near
Road,

further

restrain from interfere in peaceful use

and enjoyment of the suit property
shown in Red

Colour

in

as

Site Plan

attached.

(ii)That decree of Mandatory Injunction may

kindly

be

plaintiff
thereby

passed
and

in

against

restraining

assignees,

use

plaintiff

in

and
the

the

the

servants,

peaceful

favour

suit

Store,

Mirdard

Road,

defendant
his

etc.

for

of

the

property

i.e.

enjoyment

No.CN-767, Near

the

defendant,

agents

Chuggi

of

Delhi Jal
Minto

Road,

Board
New

Delhi, as shown in Red

Colour

in

Site

Plan attached.

(iii)

Cost

of

the

suit

may

kindly

be

awarded in favour of the plaintiff and

against the defendant;

(iv)Any

other

relief,

which

this

Honble

Court deem fit and proper may kindly be

passed

in

favour

of

the

plaintiff

and

against the defendant.

DELHI:
DATED:

PLAINTIFF
.04.2013
THROUGH
(OM PAL SINGH)
ADVOCATE

VERIFICATION:
Verified

at

Delhi

on

this

10th

day

of

April, 2013 that the contents of paras 1 to

___ of the plaint are true and correct to my
knowledge and those of contents of paras __
to ___ of the plaint are true on information
received and believed to be

correct.

Last

para is prayer to this Hon'ble Court.

PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTT.

NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO._____________/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. BIJENDER

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
& ANR.
DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,

Bijender,

S/o

Sh.

Dambar

Singh,

R/o

H.No.J-10, Shri Ram J.J. Camp, Nanakpura, New

Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:1.

That

the

deponent

is

the

plaintiff

in

the above noted case and is well conversant

with the facts of the case and competent to
swear this affidavit.
2.

That the contents of the accompanying suit

for permanent & Mandatory Injunction

has been

drafted by my counsel under my instructions and

same are true and correct to my knowledge.

The

same may be read as part and parcel of this

affidavit and are not repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ___
day of
April, 2013 that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge
and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTT.

NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO._____________/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. BIJENDER

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
& ANR.
DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,

Bijender,

S/o

Sh.

Dambar

Singh,

R/o

H.No.J-10, Shri Ram J.J. Camp, Nanakpura, New

Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:1.

That

the

deponent

is

the

plaintiff

in

the above noted case and is well conversant

with the facts of the case and competent to
swear this affidavit.
2.

That

the

contents

of

the

accompanying

application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 R/W

Section 151 CPC has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and same are true and
correct to my knowledge.

The same may be read

as part and parcel of this affidavit and are

not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ___
day of
April, 2013 that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge
and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTT.

NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO._____________/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. BIJENDER

PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

& ANR.
DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2
READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.

That the plaintiff has filed the suit for

Permanent

and

Mandatory

Injunction

and

the

contents of the same may be read as part and

parcel of this application and the same are
not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

2.

That

in

case

an

exparte

ad-interim

injunction as prayed for is not granted in

favour

of

the

plaintiff

and

defendant,

the

plaintiff

shall

against
suffer

the
an

irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be

granted compensated in terms of money and the

very purpose of filing the present suit shall

be become infructuous.

3.

That the plaintiff has a good prima facie

case in his favour and the plaintiff

has

every hope to succeed in the same.

4.

That the balance of convenience lies in

favour

of

the

plaintiff

and

against

the

defendant.

P R A Y E R:
In view of the above and in the interest
of justice, it is therefore, prayed that an
exparte ad-interim injunction may kindly be
passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the

defendant

thereby

restraining

the

defendant, their assignees, servants, agents

etc.

from

the

dispossessing

the

plaintiff

from the suit property i.e. Chuggi No.CN-767,

Near

Delhi

Jal

Board

Store,

Mirdard

Road,

Minto Road, New Delhi, and further restrain

from interfere in peaceful use and enjoyment

of the suit property

and further restrain

from interfere in peaceful use and enjoyment

of

the

Colour

suit
in

property,

as

shown

in

Red

Site Plan, till the disposal of

the present case.

Any
Court

other

deem

fit

relief,
and

which

proper

this
may

Honble

kindly

be

passed in favour of the plaintiff and against

the defendant.

DELHI:
DATED:

PLAINTIFF

.04.2013
THROUGH

(OM PAL SINGH)

ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTT.

NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO._____________/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. BIJENDER

PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

& ANR.
DEFENDANTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
SH. BIJENDER,
S/O SH. DAMBAR SINGH,
R/O H.NO.J-10, SHRI RAM J.J. CAMP,
NANAKPURA, NEW DELHI-110021
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER,
S.P. MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE,
J.L.NEHRU MARG,
NEW DELHI

2.

THE S.H.O.,
P.S. SOUTH CAMPUS,
NEW DELHI

DELHI:
DATED:

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF
.04.2013
THROUGH
(OM PAL SINGH)
ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTT.

NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO._____________/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. BIJENDER

VERSUS

PLAINTIFF

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

& ANR.
DEFENDANTS
I N D E X
S.NO.
01.

PARTICULARS

PAGES

C. FEES

MEMO OF PARTIES

02. SUIT FOR PERMANENT

INJUNCTION WITH
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
03. APPLICATION UNDER
ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2
READ WITH SECTION
151 CPC WITH
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
04. ADDRESS FORM
05. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
WITH DOCUMENTS
06. VAKALATNAMA

DELHI:
DATED:

PLAINTIFF
.04.2013

THROUGH
(OM PAL SINGH)
ADVOCATE