Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Smt. Baljit Kaur vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Smt. Baljit Kaur vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Feb 02, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1265496

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
FAO/169/2021
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Baljit Kaur

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi+ fao 169/2021 smt. baljit kaur .....appellant through: mr.manish kumar and mr.aviral s., advocatesversusdelhi development authority & ors. .....respondents through: ms.kritika gupta, advocate for respondent no.1coram:hon'ble mr. justice manoj kumar ohriorder% 02.02.20261. the present appeal impugns the order dated 05.12.2020, where the appellant’s application under orders xxxix rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure,1908, came to be dismissed.2. this court, vide order dated 11.08.2021, noting the fact situation,restrained the respondents from carrying out any further demolition and the appellant was further restrained from raising any construction in the subject property, till the next date of hearing. subsequently, on cm appl. no.order was sought, to the extent that respondent no.1 may be permitted tocomplete the demolition as well as to seal the subject property. however, during the course of the submissions, the prayer for further demolition was not pressed, and keeping in view the no objection given on behalf of the appellant, the suit property was allowed to be sealed.3. learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the aforesaid statuspersists till date, which is also affirmed by learned counsel for the appellant. learned counsels further pray that as the trial in the suit has reached at an advance stage, the parties would maintain the status as recorded in the aforesaid two orders during the pendency of suit.4. in view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. manoj kumar ohri, j february 2, 2026 na

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ FAO 169/2021 SMT. BALJIT KAUR .....Appellant Through: Mr.Manish Kumar and Mr.Aviral S., Advocates

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Kritika Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

ORDER

% 02.02.2026

1. The present appeal impugns the order dated 05.12.2020, where the appellant’s application under Orders XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure,1908, came to be dismissed.

2. This Court, vide order dated 11.08.2021, noting the fact situation,

restrained the respondents from carrying out any further demolition and the appellant was further restrained from raising any construction in the subject property, till the next date of hearing. Subsequently, on CM APPL. No.

order was sought, to the extent that respondent No.1 may be permitted to

complete the demolition as well as to seal the subject property. However, during the course of the submissions, the prayer for further demolition was not pressed, and keeping in view the no objection given on behalf of the appellant, the suit property was allowed to be sealed.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the aforesaid status

persists till date, which is also affirmed by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsels further pray that as the trial in the suit has reached at an advance stage, the parties would maintain the status as recorded in the aforesaid two orders during the pendency of suit.

4. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 2, 2026 na

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial