16

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (DISTRICT ___________), DELHI

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 20..

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Om Veer Singh S/o. ___________-
VERSUS

1. Dr. U. Basu S/o________,R/o Pragati Vihar Society, Delhi - 92

2. Tapan Kumar, S/o ______R/o Pragati Vihar Society, Delhi

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff is the permanent resident of the above mentioned address in
property bearing no. ________ Uttam Nagar, New Delhi for the last many year and is living
with wife and minor children, as a tenant.
2. That the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the above said property bearing
no_____________Uttam Nagar, New Delhi consisting two rooms, latrine and kitchen in the
above said premises of Rent Rs. 150/- (Rs. 150/-) p.m. excluding electricity and water
charges under the tenancy of late Sh_________ who died on 17.10.2013 and late Sh. _____
used to collect the rent from the plaintiff but late Sh. _____did not issued any rent receipt to
the plaintiff even after several demands made by the plaintiff but he always used to postpone
the issue of rent receipt.
3. That the plaintiff spent a huge amount on the construction of these two rooms in the
above said premises at the request of Late Sh. _____and Sh. _____assured the plaintiff to
adjust the said rent (the plaintiff is having the necessary documents/proofs of material for
construction of rooms in the above said property). It is also pertinent to mention here that the
plaintiff looked after late Sh. ______ many a times, whenever he fell ill.
4. That at present the plaintiff is having the peaceful possassion of premises no.
____________Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and is having the whole necessary documents/record
regarding possession (photocopy of Ration Card, School Card is enclosed herewith) but the
above said defendants are internded to disturbe the peaceful physical possession of the
plaintiff of the above said premises.
5. That the plaintiff is having the whole necessary household goods which are
lying/kept in the above said premises and is living peacefully.
6. That the plaintiff has paid the agreed rent @ Rs. 150/- p.m. to late Sh. ______upto
Oct. 2013. It is also pertinent to mention hare that the legal hairs of late Sh. ______are not in
the knowledge of the plaintiff and at present also the plaintiff is ready to tender the rent
before the legal heirs of late Sh. _________.
7. That on dt. 30.1.2015 the above said defendant came to the above said premises of
the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the tenanted premises immediately
 17

otherwise the plaintiff would have to face dire consequences, when the plaintiff asked about
their identity then they did not disclosethe same, instead started throwing household goods
forcibly and illegally and started to quarrel with the plaintiff when the local
residents/neighbourers intervened in the matter then the defendents left the spot after
threatening for dire consequences and to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and illegally in the
near future with the help of local goondas. The defendants openly stated that the staff of
police post Matiala dances at their tune and it is very easy job for them to dispossess any
person or to grab the property of any one with the help of the police staff.
8. That immediately on the same date the plaintiff rushed to the police post Matiala to
lodge his report against the defendants regarding such incident but duty officer did not lodge
the report of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was surprised to see that both the defendants were
already present at the Police Post Matiala.
9. That on 10.2.2015, the plaintiff sent a Registered Notice to the defendant no. 1 and
copy to Chowki Incharge Police Post Matiala by Regd. A.D. (copy of the same is enclosed
herewith) but P.P. Matiala staff has not taken any action against the defendants for reasons
best known to them.
10. That on 11.2.2015, the defendants along with two unknown persons/ whom the
plaintiff can recognise by face, came to the above said premises bearing no. _______ Uttam
Nagar, and knocked at the door at odd hours and threatened the plaintiff to come out of the
room. The plaintiff saw their faces from gaps of the door and the plaintiff got nervous, and
therefore did not come out of two-room apartment. The said persons threatened the plaintiff
to vacate the premises immediately. However, then the neighbourers gathered there and they
restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the above said premises
forcibly and illegally. When the neighbourers threatened them, they left the spot with a threat
to come after one or two days with heavy force to dispossess the plaintiff from the above said
premises forcibly and illegally.
11. That on de. 12.2.2015, the plaintiff again went to the police post Matiala to lodge the
report against the defendants but no Police Officer of P. Post Matiala is ready to listen against
the defendants and they advised the plaintiff to approach to the competent court of law to
seek his remedy and to get injunction order against the defendants and the P.S. Matiala.
12. That the plaintiff has no other efficatious remedy except to approach to this Hon'ble
court for seeking relief of injunction against the defendants from interfering in the peaceful
possession of the premises no. __________Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
13. That the cause of action arose on different date when the defendants threatened the
plaintiff to vacate the premises no. __________Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and threatened the
plaintiff of dire consequences and further to dispossess him from the above premises bearing
no.__________Uttam Nagar, New Delhi forcibly and illegally. The cause of action lastly
arose on dt. 11.2.2015 when the defendants again threatened and tried to dispossess the
plaintiff from the premises no. ______ Uttam Nagar, New Delhi forcibly and illegally with
the connivance of the Local Police. The cause of action still subsists as the threat of the
defendants to dispossess the plaintiff and to create disturbance in the peaceful possession of
the premises no._______ Uttam Nagar, New Delhi continues.
18

14. That the parties to the suit for the purpose (s) of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 130/-
on which the requisite court fee has affixed.

of action arose at Delhi and the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of

PRAYER:
-
(a) pass the decree for Permanent Injunctin in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their representatives,
employees, agents etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally
from the tenanted premises bearing no. _______ Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
and also from interfering in the peaceful possession of the above said
premises.
(b) award cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;
(c) pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper on the
facts and in the circumstances of this case.
Plaintiff
Place: Through
Date: Advocate

VERIFICATION:

plaint are true to my knowledge derived from the records of the Plaintiff maintained in the
ordinary course

Plaintiff

[NOTE : This plaint has to be supported by an affidavit]

 19

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (DISTRICT ________), DELHI

IN
SUIT NO. ___________OF 20...

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Om Veer Singh, S/o ____________
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Dr. U. Basu S/o _____________________,

2. Sh. Tapan Kumar, S/o _________________,

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER XXXIX, RULE

1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction which is pending for

2. That the contents of the accompanying suit for permanent injunction may kindly be
read as a part and parcel of this application which are not repeated here for the sake of
brevity.
3. That the plaintiff/applicant has got a prima-facie case in his favour and there is
likelihood of success in the present case.
4. That in case the defendants are not restrained by means of ad-interim injunction for
dispossessing the plaintiff from the above said premises no. _________ Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi and from interfering in physical peaceful possession of the above said premises, the
plaintiff shall suffer irrepairable loss and injury and the suit shall become anfractuous and
would lead to multiplicity of the cases.
5. That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.

PRAYER:
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Ho -

a) Pass ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their associates,

servants, agents and their representatives from interfering into the peaceful physical
possession of the plaintiff in the above said premises and from dispossessing the
applicant/plaintiff from the same.
20

b) pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and
in the circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff /Applicant
Place: Through
Date: Advocate

[NOTE : This Application has to be supported by an affidavit].