1

INTHECOURTOFSMT.RACHNAT.LAKHANPAL,
CIVILJUDGE:DELHI

SUITNO.31/07
SMT.PREMLATANEGI
Plaintiff.
Versus
SMT.PREMLATASHARMA&OTHERS.
Defendant.
ORDER:
Bythisorder,IshalldisposeoffanapplicationU/o7Rule
11CPC.Thecaseoftheplaintiffinbriefisthatplaintiffhadfileda
suit against the defendants seeking decree of permanent injunction
against the defendants restraining them from having any illegal
constructioninthesuitpremises.

2.

DefendantNo.1hadfiledWSalongwithCounterClaim

allegingthatplaintiff herselfhasraised unauthorized construction

and sought demolition of unauthorized construction raised by the
plaintiff.Thereafter,aftermovingthecounterclaimbydefendant

No.1plaintiff movedthepresent applicationU/o7Rule11CPC

seekingrejectionofcounterclaimfiledbydefendantNo.1.Plaintiff
interaliahastakentheobjectionthatdefendantNo.1hasnolocus
standitofilethecounterclaimandhasnotcometothecourtwith
cleanhands.Shehasfurthertakentheobjectionthatthecounterclaim
isnotmaintainablebecausenonoticehasbeengiventotheplaintiff
anddefendantNo.1andshehasnowherestatedastowhenand
how causeofactionaccrued againsttheplaintiff andthe counter
claim isbarred by SpecificReliefAct. Shehasfurther takenthe
objectionthatthesubjectmatterinthecounterclaimisdifferentfrom
thesubjectmatterinthesuit.Shehasfurtherobjectedthatpresent
counterclaimistimebarredinviewofDMCandDDAct.

3.

Defendant no. 1 has filed reply to this application.

Defendant No.1has submittedthatshehas locusstandi tofile her

counterclaimasunlawfulandunauthorizedconstructionraisedby
the plaintiff is adversely effecting the easementary rights of
defendantNo.1andshefurthersubmittedthatnonoticeisrequired
forfilingcounterclaimagainsttheplaintiff.

4.

Ihaveheardthecounsel andperusedtherecord. Inthe

presentcase,statusreportbyMCDhasalsobeenfiled.Inthestatus
reportfiledbytheMCDithasbeenmentionedthatnounauthorized
construction has been raised on the property of defendant No. 1
whereasunauthorizedconstructionhasbeenraisedinthepropertyof
plaintiff herself and show cause notice has also been issued vide
letterdated27.07.2007againsttheplaintiffanddemolitionorderhas
also been passed vide order dated19.10.2007against the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the subject matter is
different inthe counter claim fromthe subject matter inthe suit.
TherelevantdefinitionofcounterclaimhasbeenprovidedU/o8Rule
6ACPCand bareperusal ofthedefinition ofcounterclaimclears
thatitdoesnotprovideanywherethatthesubjectmatterinthemain
suit and counter claim has to be the same. Defendant No. 1 has
mentionedthefactthathereasementaryrightsarebeingeffected
bytheunauthorizedconstructionraisedbytheplaintiffandtherefore,
defendant No. 1 has locus standi and cause of action against the
plaintifftofilethecounterclaim.

5.

Counselfortheplaintiff hassubmitted thatthecounter

claim istimebarred,Iseenomerits inthiscontention aswellas

thereisno suchperiodof limitation fixed seeking demolitionof
unauthorizedconstruction.It seemsto me that theplaintiff has
moved thisapplicationjusttodelay the matterandtoconcealher
ownwrong,asinthestatusreport/ATRfiledbyMCDithasbeen
mentioned that unauthorized construction has been raised by the
plaintiffherself. Itappearsthatplaintiff ismaking everyeffortto
saveherskin.Thepresentsuitisforinjunctionanditiswellsettled
thatinjunctionisanequitablereliefandcannotbegrantedtothe
personwhohasapproached tothe court withuncleanhands. The
presentapplicationoftheplaintiffU/o7Rule11CPChasnomerits
and is dismissed and the counter claim of the defendant No. 1 is
maintainable.
(RACHNAT.LAKHANPAL)
CIVILJUDGE/DELHI.
ANNOUNCEDINOPENCOURT
ON29.11.2007.