The Delhi High Court on Monday, October 13, 2025, dismissed a petition filed by one Dinesh Singhal alias Sindhal, calling it "completely frivolous." The court held that Singhal's attempt to block a civil suit filed by his neighbour over alleged illegal construction was nothing but a misuse of legal process. Justice Girish Kathpalia, while refusing to entertain the plea under Article 227 of the Constitution, also directed Singhal to deposit ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within a week.
Background
The case stemmed from a long-running dispute between Deepak Jain, the complainant, and his neighbour, Dinesh Singhal, regarding alleged unauthorized construction in Singhal's property at Durgapuri Extension, East Delhi.
Jain had filed a civil suit seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain Singhal from continuing any further structural activity and to compel the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the local police to demolish the illegal portions. According to Jain, the ongoing construction had already caused cracks and structural damage to his adjacent property.
In response, Singhal approached the trial court seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)-a provision that allows rejection of a plaint if it lacks legal validity. He argued that the suit was barred under Sections 347B and 347E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, which assign exclusive jurisdiction to the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD) for matters involving notices of illegal construction.
However, both the trial court and subsequently the District Judge rejected his arguments. Persisting, Singhal approached the High Court, claiming that since the MCD had already booked his property and passed sealing orders, the civil suit should not have been entertained.
Court's Observations
Justice Kathpalia began by reiterating a well-established legal principle-when deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must only examine the plaint, not the defendant’s version.
“The plea that the defendant has not carried out any unauthorized construction is a defence plea, which is yet to be tested through trial,” the court remarked, emphasizing that such contentions cannot be used to dismiss a plaint prematurely.
The judge clarified that Sections 347B and 347E of the DMC Act do not bar a civil suit by an affected neighbour. These provisions, he explained, only restrict the person against whom the MCD issues a demolition or sealing notice from filing a separate civil suit against that order.
"What is barred is a challenge to the MCD’s notice or order-not a civil claim by an aggrieved neighbour alleging damage due to unauthorized construction," the bench observed.
The court noted that the scope of the pending ATMCD proceedings-which relate to the MCD’s action against Singhal-is entirely different from Jain’s civil claim for damage caused by construction activities.
In a stern observation, Justice Kathpalia remarked that Singhal had been deliberately delaying the trial through multiple procedural applications, apparently with the intent of tiring out the plaintiff.
"It appears that the petitioner is deliberately protracting the proceedings of the suit in order to frustrate the plaintiff into giving up the litigation," the judge said, tracing a series of rejected applications previously filed by Singhal, including those under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and even a civil revision petition that was later withdrawn.
Court's Decision
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the petition outright, without even issuing a formal notice. The judge went further, labeling the plea "devoid of merit and completely frivolous."
Accordingly, the court upheld the lower court's order, imposed a cost of ₹10,000, and directed Singhal to deposit it with the DHCLSC within one week.
"The present petition is devoid of merit and completely frivolous, so dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 to be deposited by the petitioner within one week," the bench concluded.
The accompanying applications filed alongside the main petition were also dismissed, bringing the curtain down on another episode of Delhi’s long battle with illegal constructions and neighbour disputes.
Case Title: Sh. Dinesh Singhal @ Sindhal vs. Deepak Jain & Anr.
Case Number: CM(M) 1975/2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Bhavishya Makhija, Advocate