AFTAB KHAIRI vs AFZAL BEG & ORS.

$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.10.2023

+ CM(M) 292/2023 & CM APPL. 8981/2023
AFTAB KHAIRI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.D. Ansari and Mr. I. Ahmed, Advocates with Petitioner in person
versus

AFZAL BEG & ORS. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel, MCD
ASI Ashok Kumar, PS Hauz Qazi
%
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in civil suit bearing no. 1595/2020, titled as Afzal Beg v. Aftab Khairi & Ors., whereby the Trial Court directed the Petitioner herein to remove the malba from the roof of the third floor of the subject property.
2. The learned standing counsel for Respondent No.4, MCD states that after the passing of the impugned order, the Petitioner herein has complied with the directions issued in the said order and the malba stands removed. He states that the status report dated 12.09.2023 filed by the Respondent No.4 records the said fact alongwith the photographs. He states that thus this petition has become infructuous.
3. In response, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that while the order dated 30.11.2022 stands complied with, the plaintiff is pursuing this petition on the ground that the direction issued by the Trial Court in the impugned order was beyond the scope of the reliefs sought in the plaint.
4. The Petitioner was the defendant no. 1 and the impugned order was passed upon an application filed by the plaintiff.
4.1. It is a matter of record that the malba was a consequence of the demolition of the unauthorised construction carried out by the Petitioner/defendant no. 1 on the fourth floor. It is therefore necessarily the obligation of the defendant no. 1 to remove the said malba.
4.2. This Court is of the opinion the direction issued for removal of malba necessarily arises from the reliefs which were originally sought in the plaint and therefore this Court finds no infirmity in the directions passed by the Trial Court.
5. Even otherwise since the directions issued by the Trial Court has already been complied with this Court finds no reason for this petition to remain pending.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending application stands disposed of.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
OCTOBER 5, 2023/msh/sk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any