Demolition of disputed property stayed until the subsequent purchaser’s impleadment applications are decided.

The dispute concerned Flat No. 7, N-26, Third Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

The appellant purchased the property from Ms. Sunita Pathak through a sale deed dated 31 December 2025, despite being aware of pending proceedings concerning the property, including W.P.(C) No. 11613/2022, CS DJ Nos. 307/2023 and 583/2023, and CT Case No. 1648/2024.

In contempt proceedings, the learned Single Judge held that photographs showed fresh, unauthorised construction rather than mere repair or renovation, referred the matter to the MCD Commissioner for investigation, and directed that action be taken against the unauthorised construction.

Pursuant to that order, the MCD’s Assistant Engineer passed an order dated 19 August 2026 directing demolition of the property.

The appellant thereafter sought impleadment and directions before the learned Single Judge, but apprehended demolition before her applications could be decided.

The Division Bench noted that the appellant had been aware of the proceedings but had not joined or participated in them; it also noted that the MCD had earlier granted protection to the erstwhile owner under the applicable moratorium provisions.

Whether demolition of the subject property should be stayed until the appellant’s impleadment and connected applications were heard and decided by the learned Single Judge

Whether the appellant, as a subsequent purchaser with notice of the pending proceedings, could be permitted to participate in the pending civil and contempt proceedings and raise her defence in accordance with law

Whether interim protection could be granted subject to an undertaking that no further construction would be carried out in the property

The appeal was brought under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court applied the principle that a person facing imminent demolition and alleging that her pending applications may become infructuous must be afforded an effective opportunity of being heard before irreversible action is taken, particularly where demolition may cause irreparable loss.

The Court also considered the MCD’s statutory powers concerning unauthorised construction under Sections 343(1), 344 and 491 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, as reflected in the MCD’s earlier order.

It further recognised the effect of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act and related moratorium notifications, under which properties existing before 8 February 2007 were protected from punitive action during the applicable period, subject to statutory conditions.

A subsequent purchaser with notice of pending proceedings is not entitled to disregard those proceedings, but may seek impleadment and raise available defences in accordance with law.

Although the appellant had purchased the property with knowledge of the pending proceedings and had not initially participated in them, her applications for impleadment were still pending when the MCD initiated demolition pursuant to the Single Judge’s directions.

The Division Bench noted that demolition would constitute irreversible action and could cause irreparable loss before the appellant’s status and objections were judicially considered.

This concern was reinforced by the MCD’s earlier order granting protection to the erstwhile owner and keeping the proceedings under Sections 343 and 344 of the DMC Act in abeyance or suspension under the applicable moratorium regime.

The Court therefore preserved the property temporarily, without determining the merits of the alleged unauthorised construction or validating the appellant’s purchase.

At the same time, it permitted the appellant to participate in the pending civil suit if disputed questions of fact required adjudication and bound her by an undertaking not to undertake further construction.

The appellant was permitted, if necessary, to seek impleadment in CS DJ No. 307/2023 and raise her defence in accordance with law.

Her undertaking not to carry out any further construction was recorded.

Pending applications were also disposed of.