$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 26^th April, 2024 + CS(OS) 696/2022 & I.A. 18352/2022, 3623/2023, 14163/2023, 17397/2023, 8262/2024 MANMOHAN SINGH AHUJA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. T.L. Saxena, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advs.

(M:9911000672).

versus MAHINDER SINGH AHUJA AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Shashi Shanker, Ms. Swati, Ms.

Sugandha Chhibber and Ms. Pooja Mohanani, Advs (M:7291033160).

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 8262/2024 (for delay)

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing rejoinder. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned application is disposed of.

I.A. 3623/2023 (u/O VII R 11 CPC) & I.A. 18352/2022 (u/O. XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC)

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS)696/2022 Page1of13

3. There is an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants, and the stay application under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC, is also listed for hearing.

4. Vide order 11^th November, 2022, status quo order, in respect of the suit properties mentioned at paragraph 2 of the plaint, was passed in I.A.

18352/2022, in the following terms:

“15. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs in respect of properties detailed in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

16. It is the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid properties belong to father of the plaintiff, late Sh. Attar Singh Ahuja, who expired intestate on 25^th January, 2014. A legal notice dated 30^th December, 2016 was sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants. Plaintiff claims 1/5^th share in the suit properties.

17. A civil suit for partition, being CS No.741/2017, was filed before the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. In the said suit, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants and taking into account the written statement so filed, an interim injunction was granted on 16^th December, 2021 by the ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff on the ground that the District Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the case. The suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the same before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Hence, the present suit has been filed before this Court.

18. Issue notice.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS)696/2022 Page2of13

19. Notice is accepted on behalf of the counsel for defendants no. 1, 5, 6 and 8.

20. Notice be issued to the remaining defendants through all modes.

21. Reply(ies) be filed within four weeks.

22. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

23. A prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, status quo with regard to title and possession shall be maintained by the parties in respect of the suit properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint.”

5. The ground raised by the Defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that the Plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the suit property. Thus, the Plaintiff is also liable to pay Court Fee in respect of the valuation of the entire properties as stated in the plaint.

6. In addition, ld. Counsel for the Defendants points out that an MOU dated 4th April, 2019 was executed between the parties, where the Plaintiff clearly acknowledged that the Plaintiff does not have any right. However, only in order to avoid litigation and further harassment, the Defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, out of which Rs. 2 lakhs had been already paid. As recorded therein, only a balance of Rs.18 lakhs was to be paid. Thus, it is prayed that the status quo order be vacated, in view of the said MOU.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS)696/2022 Page3of13

7. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Plaintiff had initially filed a suit before the l