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)

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 11th 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 25th January, 2014. A legal notice dated 30th December, 2016 was sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants. Plaintiff claims 1/5th 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 16th 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The said suit was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff on the ground that the District Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the case. The suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the same before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.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.

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.

7. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Plaintiff had initially filed a suit before the ld. ADJ-13 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi being Suit No. 741/17 titled Manmohan Singh Ahuja v. Rajinder Kaur. However, due to the valuation of the suit property, the suit was filed before this Court and the said suit before the ld. ADJ-13 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was withdrawn.

8. Insofar as the MOU is concerned, the statements of the Plaintiff and his son i.e. Man Mohan Singh and Joginder Singh have been recorded today. The said statements are extracted below:-

Statement of Man Mohan Singh “ A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter, ‘MoU’) dated 4th April, 2019 has been shown to me and I confirm that th