$~3 & 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 2336/2025 & CM APPL. 75630/2025 GAJANAWATI DEVI & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amiet Andley, Mr. Arun K.

Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman and Ms. Jumna Bose, Advs.

versus PUSHPA DEVI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mithlesh Jha, Adv.

(4)

+ C.R.P. 338/2025 & CM APPL. 75632/2025 SMT GAJANAWATI DEVI & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amiet Andley, Mr. Arun K.

Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman and Ms. Jumna Bose, Advs.

versus SMT PUSHPA DEVI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mithlesh Jha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 23.01.2026

1. Mr. Amiet Andley, counsel for revisionist in C.R.P. 338/2025 and petitioner in CM(M) 2336/2025 points out that the Revision Petition was filed against dismissal of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by revisionist/defendant in the civil suit CS-DJ No.924/2019 before ADJ, Central District, Delhi, while CM(M) 2336/2025 was tagged along with this matter impugning the order dated 04^th September 2025 by which application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff, was allowed

2. Brief conspectus of the matter is that the original suit filed by plaintiff sought partition of property bearing no. 5265-5266, Bharat Nagar, Shora Kothi, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055, as also a decree seeking probate of registered Will executed in favour of plaintiff by her mother, and other attendant reliefs.

3. Revisionist/Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending that the Trial Court would be coram non-judice and would lack inherent jurisdiction considering, that probate of Will cannot be tried by a Civil Court and only a Probate Court would be empowered to do so.

4. After the above application was moved, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed by plaintiff, which was withdrawn without seeking liberty, and thereafter yet another application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed, stating in paragraph 3 that plaintiff was desiring to claim only permanent and mandatory injunction, eviction and possession in relation to the said property on the basis that they were absolute owner of the property, through the registered Will dated 31^st March 2015 and that probate of Will was not mandatory in Delhi.

5. By order dated 04^th September 2025, this application was allowed noting that the amendment was justified considering the judgment of Supreme Court in Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav AIR 2019 SC 5556 where it was observed that there was no necessity for a probate in the territory of Delhi.

6. However, by the concurrent order, application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed basis that, since the suit has now been properly constituted and relief of probate had been given up, the application ought to be rejected and suit ought to be continued.

7. The matter is now placed before Trial Court on 28^th January 2026.

8. Mr. Andley, counsel relies on a decision of this Court in HSIL Limited v. Imperial Ceramic, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185 particularly paragraph 16-22, where it was held that once an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been filed, it ought to be adjudicated first in priority, since the Court must determine, whether it has jurisdiction to consider the plaint as presented. By filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint, application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be subverted, as held in the decision relied upon.

9. Before assessing merits of the pleas which have been taken, and after understanding conspectus of the matter, the Court considers it fit that an attempt at amicable resolution be made in order to close these issues between the parties, considering that, not only do these pleas relate to two branches of the same family, but also that the parties are senior citizens.

10. Parties will appear before the Mediator of Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 02^nd February 2026 at 3:00 P.M.

11. Copy