$~53
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
%						Date of Decision: 09th October, 2025
+ 	W.P.(C) 10306/2025 & CM APPL.- 63258/2025
	SMT. SAYRA & ORS.				                  .....Petitioners
				Through:	Mohd. Arif, Adv. (Through VC)

				versus

	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.  .....Respondents
Through:	Mr. Kunal Rawat, Adv. for R-1/MCD (Through VC)
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Adv. CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal and Mr. Mohammad Junaid Mahmood, Advs. for R-UOI
						Mob: 9810001315
						Email: avshreyarudy@outlook.com
						Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Ms. Sana 
Parveen and Mr. Rashneet Singh, Advs. for R-3/STF
Mob: 9313119255
Email: deeksha.kakar@scladi.com
Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Mr. Saransh Attri, Mr. Gaurav and Mr. Kajol Agarwal, Advs. for R-6
Mob: 9810097131
Email: satyendrakumar0505@gmail.com
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
     MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 to 5, to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction existing in the property of respondent nos. 6 and 7, bearing property/plot No. 327, land measuring 40 sq. yards, situated at Azim Dairy, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), draws the attention of this Court to the Status Report dated 07th September, 2025, filed on behalf of the MCD, wherein, it is stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx









”


3. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report shows that the MCD has already passed a Demolition Order dated 20th August, 2025, and that the demolition action in the subject property is planned for 15th October, 2025.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submits that the present writ petition is a misuse and abuse of the process of law, as the petitioners have already filed a suit, which remains pending with similar reliefs, as in the present writ petition.
5. He draws the attention of this Court to the reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 6, and the various documents attached therewith. Perusal of the documents on record shows that Suit No. 523/2025 is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, wherein, the Memo of Parties, reads as follows:



6. Further, the prayer sought in the aforesaid suit, is reproduced as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

”
7. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that the petitioners herein, have already filed a suit before the District Court Saket, with prayer similar to the present writ petition.
8. Thus, accordingly, when a suit has already been filed with respect to similar prayers, a subsequent writ petition would not be maintainable.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 herein, who is defendant no. 1 in the aforesaid suit pending before the District Court, Saket, also draws the attention of this Court to the Status Report dated 18th July, 2025, filed on behalf of the MCD, in the District Court, Saket, which reads as under:


10. By referring to the aforesaid Status Report, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submits that it is the stand of the MCD before the District Court, Saket, that the property in question of respondent no. 6 is old and occupied. He also draws the attention of this Court to the Show Cause Notice dated 21st July, 2025, issued by the MCD, wherein again, the property of respondent no. 6 has been referred as being old and occupied. The said Show Cause Notice is reproduced as under:

11. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the present writ petition would not be maintainable, since the petitioners have already filed a substantive suit with similar prayer, which is pending before the District Court, Saket.
12. As regards the contradictory stand taken by the MCD in the Status Report dated 07th September, 2025, filed before this Court and the Status Report dated 18th July, 2025, filed before the District Court, Saket, it is directed that the concerned officials of the MCD, shall grant a hearing to the respondent no. 6 herein, and pass appropriate orders, accordingly.
13. It is further directed that till the requisite hearing is granted to respondent no. 6, and appropriate orders are passed by the MCD, no coercive action shall be taken against the property of respondent no. 6.
14. Let the hearing be granted and requisite orders be passed by the MCD, expeditiously, in a time bound manner, within a period of six weeks, from today.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 9, 2025/SK

					
                                                                            

W.P.(C) 10306/2025                                                                                                                    Page 1 of 9