$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21^st JANUARY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ CS(OS) 132/2019 M/S GLOBAL AGRO CORPORATION PVT. LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, with Mr. Vijay Kumar Wadhwa, Advocates versus SHRI AJAY SHARMA & ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr. Manik Dogra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kapil Rustagi, Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Mr.Tanvir Nayar, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi and Mr.Dhruv Pande, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT (ORAL)

I.A. 620/2023 & I.A. 97/2026

1. I.A. 620/2023 has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC for bringing on record the Legal Heirs (LRs) of the deceased Defendant No.1 – Shri Ajay Sharma.

2. I.A. 97/2026 has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application i.e., I.A. 620/2023 which is for bringing on record the Legal Heirs of the deceased Defendant No.1 – Shri Ajay Sharma.

3. The instant Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 23.08.2015 in respect of the Property bearing No.C-69, land area measuring 317 sq. yards, in Block C, situated in the approved colony known as Shivaji Park, near Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 110026 [“Suit Property”]

4. The Plaintiff herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. Prior to incorporation, the Plaintiff was a partnership firm under the name style of M/s Global Agro Corporation. As per the Plaint, the Suit Property was owned by one Sh. Maharaj Krishan Sharma, who passed away intestate on 10.06.2004, leaving behind the Defendants i.e., his wife and children, who have jointly inherited the Suit Property.

5. It is stated that a Collaboration Agreement dated 23.08.2008 for reconstruction/redevelopment of the Suit Property was entered into with one Mr. Ashish Bansal, who was at the relevant point of time the Director of the Plaintiff. It is stated that Mr. Ashish Bansal resigned from the Plaintiff Company and transferred his shares in favour of one Mr. Manish Goel, who was also one of the Directors of the Plaintiff. It is stated that vide an Assignment Deed dated 20.01.2021, all the right, title and interest in the Plaintiff Company was assigned in favour of Mr. Ashish Bansal.

6. It is stated that, thereafter, an application being I.A. 389/2023 was filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC by Mr. Ashish Bansal seeking impleadment/substitution of himself as the Plaintiff in the present Suit which was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 05.12.2025. Mr. Ashish Bansal is, therefore, now prosecuting the present Suit.

7. Summons in the Suit were issued on 19.03.2019. Defendant No.1 – Ajay Sharma could not be served. However, Defendant No.2 has been served and he has filed his written statement. On 20.12.2024, a statement was made by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that it has come to his knowledge that Defendant No.1 has passed away and necessary steps will be taken to bring on record the LRs of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2, who is the brother of the Defendant No.1, did not inform the Court that Defendant No.1 has passed away.

8. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the death of Defendant No.1 could be ascertained only somewhere around 11.07.2022, when the Investigating Officer (IO) in a complaint case pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned with Punjabi Bagh Police Station, confirmed the news of death of Defendant No.1. It is stated that, thereafter, the Plaintiff started to gather the details of the LRs of the Defendant No.1 and came to know about Defendant No.1’s wife and his two sons, however, the name of the second son was not known.

9. Resultantly, the Plaintiff filed the I.A. 620/2023 for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased Defendant No.1. It is stated in the application that Defendant No.1 was not staying in the Suit Property and left the same long ago and, therefore, no co