$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 16.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 23.12.2025

Judgment uploaded on: 23.12.2025

+ RFA(OS) 20/2010, CM APPL. 10645/2024, CM APPL.

47279/2024, CM APPL. 52908/2025, CM APPL. 53109/2025, CM APPL. 10645/2024, CM APPL. 70682/2025, CM APPL.

70684/2025

HARJIT SINGH .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Nazia

Khanam and Mr. A.K. Dubey, Advs. with Appellant in-person.

versus

SARDAR RAWEL SINGH DEAD THR LRS & ORS

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. along

with Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Vedic Thukral, Advs. for R-

3 with R-3 in-person.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-

6.

+ RFA(OS) 26/2010, CM APPL. 27503/2018, CM APPL.

43474/2022, CM APPL. 29651/2023, CM APPL. 70681/2025, CM APPL. 79229/2025, CM APPL. 79230/2025, CM APPL.

79231/2025

NARENDER SINGH .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

versus

RAJINDER KAUR & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. along

with Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Vedic Thukral, Advs. for R-

3 with R-3 in-person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these two connected Regular First Appeals, assailing the correctness of an order passed on 11.09.2009 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No.

690/2005, are taken up for final disposal by this common judgment.

2. Since both Appeals arise from the same suit, involve identical facts, and challenge the same Impugned Order, they are being disposed of together to avoid multiplicity of judgments and inconsistent findings.

3. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeals is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of concealment of material facts and alleged violation of an undertaking, without permitting the parties to lead evidence and have the controversies adjudicated on merits?

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeals, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge.

5. The genealogy of the parties is as under:

6. The Plaintiffs instituted CS (OS) No. 690/2005 seeking partition of the property bearing No. 9/56, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’] along with consequential reliefs, including a decree of permanent injunction. The suit property originally belonged to Late Sardar Rawel Singh. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are members of the same family and claim their respective rights and shares in the suit property on the basis that it constitutes joint family/HUF property. The rival claims of the parties form the foundation of the suit for partition.

7. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was also filed seeking restraint against the Defendants from alienating or creating third-party interests in the suit property, which was allowed on 27.07.2005. Subsequently, the Defendants filed an application seeking vacation of the interim injunction granted on 27.07.2005. It was contended that during the pendency of the suit, portions of the suit property had been dealt with and that third-party interests had intervened, necessitating reconsideration of the interim protection.

8. Simultaneously, an application was moved for impleadment of Smt. Jaspal Kaur on the premise that certain rights in respect of the suit property had been transferred in her favour. The said application came to be considered by the learned Single Judge along with other pending applications. By an order dated 04.05.2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the application for impleadment and directed that Smt. Jaspal Kaur be arrayed as a party to the suit. While passing the said order, the learned Singl