$~35 * IN THEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEW DELHI + CS(OS) 55/2018& I.As. 28455-56/2025, 28458/2025, 28460-61/2025 MRS. VINOD KUMARI BHALLA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Singh Chadha, Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Naveen Sharma and Ms. Ayushi Agarwal, Advocates versus MR. ANIL PRAKASH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS. & ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Kumar and Mr. Jayant Malik, Advocates for D-2 Mr. P. N. Gautam and Mr. Shivam Ujjainwal, Advocates for R-2(a), (b), (c) in Review Pet. 570/2025 and R-3 (a), (b), (c)in Review Pet. 571/2025 Mr. Vaibhav Bharti, Mr. Dhruv Sharma and Mr. Puneet, Advocates for D-4 & D-5 Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Summit Kaushal, Advocate for D-6 Mr. Pramod Saigal, Court Auctioneer CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025 REVIEW PET. 570/2025 REVIEW PET. 571/2025

1. The review petition no. 570/2025 has been filed by applicant/defendant no. 2 and review petition no. 571/2025 has been filed by applicant/defendant no. 6, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [„CPC‟].

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 6 respectively submit that the pleas arising for consideration in both the petitions are substantially similar. The submissions made in both the review petitions are similar and, therefore, are being taken up for consideration together. The parties herein are being referred to as per the amended memo of parties filed in CS(OS) 55/2018.

3. Mr. Akshay Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 6, submits that at the hearing held on 22.05.2025, defendant no. 6 and her counsel was unable to apprise this Court of the fact that she had already filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on 21.05.2025, seeking leave to expunge the written statement dated 16.04.2018 jointly filed with defendant no. 5, and in the alternative, to amend her written statement.

3.1. He submits that although defendant no. 6 was present in Court on the said date, along with her husband, Mr. Yuvraj Vats, who is the Special Power of Attorney [„SPA‟] holder for defendant no. 2, and had interacted with the Court, she was unable to fully comprehend the proceedings and merely responded to the questions put to her by the Court concerning the issue of physical possession of the suit property.

3.2. He submits that in the written statement dated 16.04.2018, defendant no. 6 had disputed the validity of the Will dated 28.04.1998 (paragraph nos.

6 and 7 atpage 67) propounded with the plaint.

3.3. He submits, however, that upon conferring with defendant no. 2, defendant no. 6 she now seeks to withdraw the said objection and accept the validity of the Will dated 28.04.1998.

3.4. He submits that since the plaintiff has abandoned its reliance on the Will dated 28.04.1998, as pleaded in the plaint, defendant no. 6 ought to have been granted an opportunity to amend her written statement accordingly.

3.5. He states that defendant no. 6 may be permitted to amend her written statement in the interest of justice. He does not press any other plea on merits.

4. Mr. Viraj Datar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 2, submits that defendant no. 2 as well had filed an application on 21.05.2025 seeking condonation of delay and leave to place on record its written statement dated 21.05.2025, which was signed by its SPA holder, Mr. Yuvraj Vats (i.e., husband of defendant no. 6). He admits that Mr.

Yuvraj Vats was present in Court at the hearing dated 22.05.2025.

4.1. He submits that the filing of the said application and written statement was not brought to the notice of this Court, by Mr. Yuvraj Vats or the counsel appearing for defendant no. 2, at the hearing held on 22.05.2025.

4.2. He states that submissions to the aforesaid effect have already been recorded in this Court‟s order dated 19.11.2025, the relevant extract whereof reads asunder: -

“REVIEW PET. 570/2025

1. This is a review petition file