$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21^st January, 2026 + CS(OS) 278/2018, I.A. 7760/2018, I.A. 14223/2022 & I.A.

15479/2022 MANISH AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Surender Gupta, Adv. along with Plaintiff Mr. Manish Aggarwal in person.

Mob: 9811196644 Email:

surendergupta.adv@gmail.com versus RAM NARAYAN PANDEY & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Satyavan Kudalwal and Mr.

Aakash Kudalwal, Advs. for D-

7(LRs)

Defendant No. 1 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

1. Settlement Agreement dated 24^th September, 2025, has been received from the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs had purchased the plot of land measuring 450 sq. yards, in Khasra No. 1614/1195/558, located in the Village of Bahapur, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi.

3. He submits that the plaintiffs had purchased the said land in question from the original owner, i.e., Legal Representatives (“LRs”) of Sh. Ratan Lal Gupta.

4. He further submits that out of the 450 sq. yards of the land in question, which was purchased by the plaintiffs, only 270 sq. yards had been handed over to the plaintiffs.

5. Thus, by way of the present suit, the plaintiffs had sought for the remaining 180 sq. yards of the land in question.

6. It is submitted that the remaining land was in the possession of defendant nos. 1 to 7, which was part of the land measuring 900 sq. yards, in possession of defendant no. 1.

7. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 29^th March, 2022, wherein, defendant nos. 2 to 7, were transposed as plaintiffs.

8. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 7, who was transposed as plaintiff vide order dated 29^th March, 2022, submits that defendant no. 7 was not present at the time of the settlement in question between the parties, and that his rights have been compromised. He, thus, submits that he wishes to continue with the suit.

9. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 30^th September, 2019, wherein, it is recorded as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx Written statement to the suit of plaintiffs not filed by defendant No.7 till date. Learned counsel for defendant No.7 submits that defendant No.7 does not wish to file separate written statement and affidavit for admission/denial of documents and he adopts the same written statement and affidavit for admission/denial of documents as already filed by defendant No.2 to 6.

xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasis Supplied)

10. By referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the defendant no. 7 had not filed any written statement or affidavit of admission/denial of documents, and he had adopted the written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents, as already filed by defendant nos. 2 to 6.

11. He, thus, submits that when defendant nos. 2 to 6 are party to the Settlement Agreement dated 24^th September, 2025 duly executed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, defendant no. 7 cannot, at this stage, raise any dispute.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that land measuring 180 sq. yards, has already been handed over to the plaintiffs, by defendant no. 1. Since the plaintiffs have now got possession of their full land measuring 450 sq. yards, the plaintiffs, in view of the Settlement Agreement dated 24^th September, 2025, do not wish to continue with the present suit.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 7 submits that defendant no. 7 has a share of 150 sq. yards in the land in question, and that since the whole land measuring 630 sq. yards, was in possession of defendant no. 1, his share of 150 sq. yards, ought to be given to him. He submits that the present suit is essentially filed for partition of the Joint Family Property.

14. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes tha