Mr. Abhimanyu and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ORS

RSA 102/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 102/2025, CM APPL. 40813/2025 ARVIND KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Abhimanyu and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Aishwarya Bhatia, Advocates. Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate for MCD/R-2. Mr. Rajeev Nanda, Mr. Susheel Vats and Mr. D. Singh, Advocates for R-4 and R-5 with R-4 and R-5 in-person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 06.08.2025 By way of the present regular second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 („CPC‟), the appellants inter-alia impugn judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-02, North District, Rohini Courts Complex, Delhi in first appeal bearing RCA DJ No.47/24. 2. The appellants have made the following prayers in the second appeal: “(i) Call for the record of the case passed by Ld. Trial Court JSCC-cum-Addl. SCJ-cum Guardian Judge, North, Rohini Court, Delhi and further of Ld. Appellate Court, DJ-2, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi. (ii) Set aside impugned Judgment/order dt. 19/03/2025 passed by Court of, Ld. District Judge-02, North, Rohini Court, Delhi in Civil Appeal Bearing No RCA DJ No. 47/2024 Titled As This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2025 at 12:10:50 RSA 102/2025 Page 2 of 4 “Arvind Kumar Mahajan & Anr. Vs. DDA & Ors.” and Judgement/Order decree dated 03/09/2024 passed by Hon’ble Trial Court, JSCC-cum-Addl. SCJ-cum Guardian Judge, North, Rohini Court, Delhi. (iii) Restore the suit in its original position and direct the Ld. Trial Coutt to proceed with the suit. (iv) Award the cost of the present appeal in favour of Appellants and against the Respondents.” 3. At the first hearing of this appeal on 14.07.2025, this court had observed that while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of plaint, vide judgment dated 19.03.2025 the learned First Appellate Court had recorded that the appellants (plaintiffs) do not have a cause of action, instead of recording that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. 4. Thereafter, without issuing notice on the appeal, and considering the real dispute between the parties,this court had directed the private respondents to remain present in court at the subsequent hearing on 16.07.2025. 5. In view of what transpired in the course of the hearing on 16.07.2025,and the grievance expressed by the appellants to the effect that the installation of the lift had led to narrowing of the staircase leading-up to the upper floors, and was also proving to be an obstruction to the entrance to their apartments, this court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the site of the dispute; and to submit a report as to whether consequent upon installation of lift-well, the width of the staircase had been narrowed-down and whether the entrance to the appellants‟ apartments was restricted in any manner. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2025 at 12:10:50 RSA 102/2025 Page 3 of 4 6. Pursuant to that, the learned Local Commissioner, Ms. Tanzeela Rashid, Advocate has handed-up a copy of Report dated 04.08.2025 of the inspection conducted by her on 19.07.2025. Photographs in support of the observations made in the report have been appended to it. Report dated 04.08.2025 is taken on record. 7. In her report, the learned Local Commissioner has put-down detailed observations in relation to the various apartments that were claimed to have been affected by installation of the lift-well. The learned Local Commissioner has also given in her report, detailed measurements of the dead area of the building, the area occupied by installation of the lift, and of the staircase, coming to the following conclusions: “5. Summary and Conclusion : The installation of the lifts in both Block A-33 to A-40 and A-41 to A-48 has not significantly narrowed the way for regular pedestrian movement. Ingress and egress of residents remain unobstructed. However, minor obstructions such as drainage outlets and telephone wires may hinder movement only when transporting bulky/loaded items. The staircases remain unaffected and functional with no structural narrowing.” 8. As is evident from the foregoing, the only minor obstructions pointed-out by the learned Local Commissioner relate to drainage outlets and telephone wires, which has nothing to do with the installation of the lift-well. 9. Most importantly, the Local Commissioner‟s report clearly points-out that the staircase remains unaffected and functional, with no structural narrowing; and the ingress and egress of the residents remains This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2025 at 12:10:50 RSA 102/2025 Page 4 of 4 unobstructed to apartment Nos. A-44 and A-33, Vandana Apartments, Plot No.18/2, Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi, by installation of the lift-well. 10. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the observations of the learned trial court in order dated 03.09.2024; and of the learned First Appellate Court in judgment dated 19.03.2025, to the effect that the plaint filed did not have a cause of action, arose from the fact that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint. 11. In any event, the present proceedings are a regular second appeal under section 100 of the CPC, and in the opinion of this court, none of the proposed questions of law set-out in para 4 of the memo of appeal, arise for consideration before this court. 12. In view of the above, the present regular second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of issuance of notice itself. 13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J AUGUST 6, 2025/ak