$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010401032022 + FAO 272/2022 and CM APPL. 46103/2022 (stay) VIJENDRA KUMAR CHAURASIA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr.Satender Kumar and Mr.Nishith Srivastava, Advocates versus KRISHAN GOPAL ATTREE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Bhatnagar and Ms. Richa Singhania, Advocate for respondent no. 1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. By way of the present appeal filed under Order XLIII read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter the “CPC”), the appellants seek to assail the order dated 02.06.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03, (South), Saket Courts, in Civil Suit No.64 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC came to be dismissed. 2. The appellants, by way of the present appeal, seek the following prayers: “a) To set aside and quash the Impugned Order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Ld. ADJ-03 (South), Saket Courts, in Civil Suit No.64 of 2021 and/or to modify the same or cancel or rescind or quash in the light of the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove; b) Call for the records of the Civil Suit No.64 of 2021, titled as Vijendra Kumar Chourasia & Anr Vs- Krishan Gopal Attree & 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 11:45:40 Anr pending before the learned Additional District Judge-03 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi.” 3. Briefly, the dispute pertains to Shop No.G-7 (Old No.G-7/A), Ground Floor, situated at 389, South Ex Plaza Market, Masjid Moth, NDSE-II, New Delhi-110049. The appellants/plaintiffs claim to have jointly purchased the suit property from one Jagan Nath in September, 2015 for a consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- on the strength of an Agreement to Sell, GPA, receipt and possession letter. It is their case that physical possession of the suit property was also handed over to them by Jagan Nath. The appellants further claim that Jagan Nath and his father, Kishan Lal, had earlier acquired the suit property from one Chet Ram under the documents dated 25.07.1990. 4. As per the appellants, after the aforesaid transaction, Jagan Nath was permitted to occupy the suit property as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. It is stated that the rent continued to be received till August, 2020. However, when appellant No.1 visited the suit property on 01.12.2020, he found that Jagan Nath was no longer in occupation thereof and locks had been put on the shutters of the suit property. The appellants allege that respondent No.1 had thereafter taken over the possession of the suit property and had subsequently put respondent No.2 in possession thereof. 5. Respondent No.1, on the other hand, disputes the appellants’ claim to title as well as the alleged transaction with Jagan Nath. His case before the Trial Court is that Jagan Nath was never the owner of the suit property and consequently had no right to transfer the same in favour of the appellants. 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 11:45:40 Respondent No.1 claims rights in the property through his predecessor and has also asserted that possession of the suit property remained with him. 6. The Trial Court, while dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, inter alia, observed that the appellants were claiming ownership on the basis of unregistered documents, namely, GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipt and possession letter. The Trial Court further noticed that the title of Jagan Nath itself was disputed and that no material had been placed before it to show that the respondent was likely to alienate the suit property or create any third-party rights therein. Consequently, the Trial Court found that no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction was made out. 7. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned order by contending that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents placed on record showing the appellants’ claim through Jagan Nath. It is submitted that Jagan Nath and his father had acquired the suit property from Chet Ram much prior to the alleged GPA relied upon by respondent No.1 and that the GPA in favour of respondent No.1 did not pertain to the suit property. It is thus contended that, at the least, the nature and character of the suit property ought to be protected during the pendency of the suit. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent in the pending suit, submits that the respondent would not sell, transfer, alienate or create any third-party interest in the suit property. 9. Considering the nature of controversy between the parties and, in particular, the aforesaid statement made on behalf of respondent No.1, this 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 11:45:40 Court is of the considered view that the suit property ought to be preserved during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to title and possession of the suit property and shall not sell, transfer, alienate or create any third-party rights or interest therein till the disposal of the suit. 11. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the respective claims of the parties with regard to title or possession of the suit property and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. 12. In view of the above, the present appeal, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 na 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 11:45:40