Shalinder Kaur JUDGMENT
Shalinder Kaur, J.
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous (Main) petition no. 664/2023 has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in CS SCJ 326/2017 titled as "Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr vs. Sh. Pawan Sehrawat & Ors" whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent no. 1 & 2 herein under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for seeking permission to lead defence evidence and recalling of order dated 23.11.2022.
2. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, the relevant facts are that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are husband and wife and owners of the properties bearing no. F/1 & F/7 respectively in the khasra no. 847/1 situated in Harijan Basti, Mahipalpur village, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were enjoying the peaceful possession of their properties till 20.01.2017 and thereafter, on the same day, respondent no. 1 & 2 accompanied by labourers started digging the common road in front of the property of petitioner no.1 in order to erect an illegal wall. Thereby causing hindrance in the free movement of petitioner no. 1 and her family members. Further, the extension of the said wall is from the unauthorised enclosed room of 17 sq. yards which was built by respondent no. 1 & 2 on the common public road measuring 18 feet wide outside the house of the petitioners.
4. Subsequently, on 05.04.2017, the petitioners filed a civil suit bearing no. CS SCJ 326/2017 before the learned Trial Court for permanent and mandatory injunction along with an application for ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC to restrain respondent no. 1 & 2 from raising or extending any illegal wall. Moreso, the petitioners are seeking mandatory injunction to stop the unauthorised digging in front of their house and permanent injunction directing respondent no. 1 & 2 to observe status quo against any unauthorised construction after demolishing the same.
5. Respondent no.1 & 2 filed their written statement wherein they denied all the allegations and submitted that the property on which the construction is being raised is their own. On 09.06.2017, the learned Trial Court allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC and restrained the respondent no. 1 & 2 from extending or raising the wall any further. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 & 2 were also directed to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the suit. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 & 2 in their defence, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint which was dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2017.
6. Respondent no.1 & 2 filed another application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of stay which was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 17.03.2018. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 & 2 filed an appeal bearing MCA no. 01/18, under Order XLIII read with Section 104 CPC challenging the orders dated 09.06.2017 and 17.03.2018. Vi........