Restriction can be imposed on the defendant from committing a breach of contract : High Court Of New Delhi

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 10th November 2021 FAO 249 2021 RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA Appellant MST. SAHIDA AHMAD AND ORS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Singh Mr. J. Amal Anand Mr. Elvin Advocates with Appellant in person Joshy Ms. KirtikaChhatwal For the Respondents : Mr. Hem C. Vashisht Advocate for R 1 4 5 7& 8 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA J. CM APPLN. 39693 2021 & 39695 2021Allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO 249 2021& CM APPLN. 39692 2021an injunction has been sought against the respondents inter alia from holding any function unlawful assembly or doing any illegal act on any part of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in possession of the entire property and has been continuously using the same from the very inception till date. He further submits that proxy litigations were also filed by the respondents unsuccessfully before several forums. He submits that in case the respondents are not restrained from holding any marriage function in the subject property grave prejudice would be caused to the appellant. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 4 5 7 & 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 4 5 7 & 8 submits that they are ones who are proposing to hold the marriage function of respondent no. 4. Learned counsel under instruction submits that in view of the controversy raised and without prejudice to their rights and contentions they shall not hold the proposed marriage function on the subject property. The statement is taken on record. FAO 249 2021 In view of the above appeal is disposed of binding the respondents to their statements that no marriage function shall be held in the subject premises as proposed. This would however be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and would not in any manner influence the trial court in the final adjudication of the suit. It is pointed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the wall adjoining the servant quarters has been broken by the respondents for the purposes of bringing in their guests from that side. This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the wall has fallen down on account of natural circumstances. 13. Without getting into the said controversy appellant is permitted to have the said wall repaired. 14. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA J NOVEMBER 10 2021 FAO 249 2021 

Summary: The present petition of the appellant was under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a Single bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, in the matter RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA V. MST. SALIDA AHMAD AND ORS dealt with an issue mentioned above. In this case, the 1st application was been dismissed holding that the relief sought in the application is beyond the subject matter FAO 249/2021 of the suit. So, The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in holding that the relief claimed is beyond the subject matter of the suit, in as much as, in prayer (ii), an injunction has been sought against the respondents, inter-alia, from holding any function, unlawful assembly or doing any illegal act on any part of the property. He also submits that the appellant owns the entire property and has been continuously using the same from the very inception till date. He also mentioned that proxy litigations were also filed by the respondents unsuccessfully before several forums. Meanwhile, an Issue notice was issued, Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1, 4, 5, 7 &amp; 8. And also Learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1, 4, 5, 7 &amp; 8  submitted that they are proposing to hold the marriage function of respondent no. 4. Learned counsel, under instruction, submitted that given the controversy raised and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they shall not hold the proposed marriage function on the subject property. So given the above, an appeal is disposed of binding the respondents to their statements that no marriage function shall be held in the subject premises as proposed. It was pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the wall adjoining the servant quarters was been broken by the respondents to bring in their guests from that side. This was also disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the wall has fallen on account of natural circumstances. The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “Without getting into the said controversy, the appellant is permitted to have the said wall repaired”.