June 29, 2024 In Uncategorized


A single-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed a Judgment dated 12-06-2024 in the matter of MS Payal Kashyap vs. Ritu Pahwa & Anr., First Appeal from Order (FAO) 196/2024, Civil Miscellaneous Application. 35286/2024 (stay) and observed that ad the construction of the lift in the residential premises was at an advanced stay and sufficient expenditure had already been incurred by the Appellant, hence, the High Court vacated the stay granted by Lower Court on the construction of the lift. However, leave was granted to the Respondent to establish any deviations in the construction of lift, if any, caused by the Appellant before the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and based on the findings of SDMC, further action would be taken in respect of the construction of the lift.


i) That the aforesaid Appeal, was filed before the Apex Court by one, Payal Kashyap (Appellant) against one, Ritu Pahwa and Anr. (Respondent), who challenged the decision of the Learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi which, vide, Impugned Order dated 07.05.2024, granted the injunction to prevent the Appellant from further constructing the lift near the Respondent’s premises, specifically Flat No. 70, Munirka Enclave, New Delhi, as depicted in the Site Plan submitted with the Plaint.

ii) The Appellant, owned Flat No. 72 on the Second and Third Floors of Munirka Enclave, New Delhi. She applied for permission from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to install a lift and received a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 18.03.2024. The NOC allowed the installation of a common lift with a connecting bridge for Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Flat Nos.70 to 72.

iii) Further, the Respondent No. 1, who resided in Flat No. 70, raised objection to the construction of the lift. She submitted a representation to the President of the Munirka Enclave Resident Association (MERA), which led to a meeting on 11.04.2024. During the meeting, her grievances were addressed, and an assurance was given to maintain the roadside entry for the lift. Despite this, the Respondent filed a Civil Suit seeking a permanent injunction to stop the construction of the lift near her Property.

iv) The Ld. Additional District Judge (ADJ) granted an ex-parte interim injunction on 07.05.2024, restraining the Appellant from continuing with the construction of the lift.

v) Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the High Court of Delhi, arguing that the stay was granted without any issue of notice, despite the Appellant obtaining the required NOC for construction of lift and addressing the Respondent’s No. 1 concerns in the MERA meeting. The Appellant highlighted that 75% of the construction was complete and Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh only) had already been spent. Additionally, the Appellant stated that her aged parents needed the lift due to difficulty in climbing stairs.


The Ld. ADJ granted an ex parte interim injunction vide Order dated 07.05.2024, restraining the Appellant from continuing the construction of a lift near the Respondent No. 1’s Property in Munirka Enclave, New Delhi.

However, the Injunction was made without prior notice to the Appellant, based on the Respondent’s claims that the construction infringed her privacy, caused damage to her Property and violated the Sanctioned Plan. The injunction was to remain in effect until the next hearing.


Aggrieved by the Additional District Judge’s Order dated 07.05.2024, the Appellant filed a First Appeal from Order 196 of 2024 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.35286 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 12-06-2024, held as follows:


Whether the Ex-Parte Interim Injunction granted by Ld. ADJ, restraining the Appellant from continuing the construction of a lift in Munirka Enclave, New Delhi, should be upheld or vacated.


1) The lift construction was carried out according to the Guidelines of the SDMC. The Appellant had obtained the necessary NOC and sanction plan from SDMC.

2) The Appellant had addressed the concerns of the Respondent during a meeting with the Munirka Enclave Resident Association (MERA) on 11.04.2024. An assurance was provided to keep the roadside entry for the lift.

3) The High Court acknowledged that 75% of the construction work for the lift, specifically the outer structure, had already been completed, and Rs. 13,00,000/- had been spent.

4) Further, the Respondent claimed that the construction was infringing her privacy, causing damage to her Property, and was not being conducted according to the sanctioned plan. However, the Court found that these claims were not substantiated with documents showing specific deviations from the sanctioned plan during the hearing.

5) Moreover, the Court allowed the Respondent liberty to apply to SDMC detailing any deviations from the sanctioned plan. SDMC was directed to decide on this application within one week of filing.

6) Considering the advanced stage of construction and compliance with the sanctioned plan, the Court vacated the Interim Stay on the construction, allowing the Appellant to continue the work. However, the High Court directed that if any deviation or violation of the sanctioned plan is found, SDMC ought to take immediate corrective action, including stopping construction or demolishing any unauthorized construction.


Based on the aforementioned observations, the High Court of Delhi remanded the matter to Ld. ADJ with instructions to dispose off the Application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) (Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders) after hearing both Parties within 15 days.


Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer

Leave a Reply