$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010471092026 + C.R.P. 298/2026 & CM APPL. 67878/2026 N. KARTHICK VISHWANATHAN ALIAS TARUN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate (through VC). versus ASHANAND SAINI ALIAS ANAND SAINI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 09th June 2026 passed by the Civil Judge, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No.63/2026, which had rejected the application filed by petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). 2. The said suit had been filed for permanent injunction by plaintiff/respondent no.1, stating that they were in possession of property bearing no. B-209, measuring 48 square yards, out of Khasra no.19/1, Village Karala, Delhi in a colony known as Katyani Vihar. 3. It has been stated that respondent no.1/plaintiff have been in possession and occupation since the purchase of property in 1991. Earlier, the father of 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 06/10/2026 at 11:41:28 petitioners/defendant nos.1 & 2 had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, being, Civil Suit No.09/2010 against the respondent no.1/plaintiff. The suit was contested and had been dismissed by Judgment dated 16th March 2014. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the father of petitioners, being, RCA No.24/2015 and had also dismissed by order dated 04th November 2015. 4. The present suit, which has been filed, is based on a different cause of action arising on 10th March 2025, as stated in paragraph no.10 of the plaint i.e., when respondent no.1/plaintiff went to the suit property for carrying forward repair/construction work and petitioners/defendant nos. 1 & 2 started creating nuisance, obstruction by throwing building materials and threatening them. Accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction had been filed. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is not amiss in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, considering that this is a fresh cause of action which has accrued in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff in 2025. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. 7. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/ak/sp 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 06/10/2026 at 11:41:28