$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 256/2019 SHAILESH KANT SHARMA ....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Avani Sharma, Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Mr. Krishna Upreti, Advocates versus SHISHIR KANT SHARMA & ANR ......Defendants Through: Mr. Rohit Singha, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 I.A. 683/2026

1. This application has been filed on behalf of the Applicants/Legal Heirs of the deceased Plaintiff seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC.

2. The instant suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking partition, declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts in respect of the property bearing House No.5, Priya Enclave, Karkardooma, New Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as stated in the Plaint are that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are siblings, and sons of Late Rajni Kant Sharma and Late Shyama Sharma. The family is governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law. It is stated in the plaint that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Late Rajni Kant Sharma and had been allotted to him in the year 1984 by DDA. A house was constructed on the suit property in the year 1988 and the suit property was converted to freehold property on 16.01.1997. The Plaintiff used to reside with his father, Late Rajni Kant Sharma from 1988 till 2003, whereafter he moved outside India for his job and he would frequently visit his family in the suit property which is now in his joint possession.

4. The father of the Plaintiff, Late Rajni Kant Sharma, passed away intestate on 15.01.2019 after suffering a cardiac arrest. The mother of the Plaintiff had pre-deceased the father of the Plaintiff and had passed away in 2011. It is further stated that the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendants were actively attempting to sell the suit property.

5. The Plaintiff, anticipating that the Defendants were attempting to alienate the Plaintiff’s share in the suit property by relying upon forged and fabricated documents and were also taking steps to get the property mutated exclusively in their names, with a view to facilitate and expedite its sale, the Plaintiff approached this Court seeking partition of the suit property in accordance with his lawful share. The suit has the following prayers:-

“a. Granting a decree of partition by metes and bounds of the Suit Property bearing House No. 5, Priya Enclave, Karkardooma New Delhi-92, and put the Plaintiff in exclusive possession of his share as adjudged in this suit;

b. A preliminary decree of partition be made declaring the shares of the Plaintiff and to appoint a local commissioner to determine the actual and definite share in the Suit Property and this Hon'ble Court may allow his share by metes and bounds.

c. Possession of the actual share devolving on the partition be allotted after the Local Commissioner determines and delineates the shares by metes and bounds;

d. Of declaration that the name of the Plaintiff be ordered to be added as a co-owner of 1/3^rd share of the Suit Property by the Defendants, the Plaintiff being the Class I Heir of the deceased;

e. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from mutating, alienating, transferring the Suit Property and/or creating third-party rights against the Suit Property;

f. Directing the Defendants to disclose and render true and correct accounts of the movable assets, properties including bank accounts, fixed deposits, mutual funds, shares and rents and the ancestral jewellery along with Stridhan of the wife of the Plaintiff so received by the Defendants after the death of Mr. Rajni Kant Sharma. Further court fee as per the amount decreed in favour of the Plaintiff shall be paid at the appropriate stage.

g. Decree the costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and;

h. Any other relief that this court deems fit.

i. Cost of the Suit. ”

6. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff passe