$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 88/2026 & I.A. 2534/2026, I.A. 2536/2026, I.A. 2537/2026 RAMESH CHANDER DHINGRA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr Zakir Hussain and Masood Hussain, Advocates versus PRAVESH CHANDER DHINGRA & ORS. .....Defendants Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026

1. The present Suit has been filed with the following prayers:

“(a) Pass a decree declaring the Plaintiff as the owner of a one-third share in the Suit Property bearing No. 164, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.

And;

(b) Pass a decree of partition, dividing the Suit Property by metes and bounds or by distributing sale proceeds, allocating a one-third share to the Plaintiff.

And;

(c) Pass a decree of possession, granting the Plaintiff possession of his one-third share in the Suit Property.

And;

(d)Pass a decree declaring the Will dated 11th January

1999 as null and void. And;

(e) Pass a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Defendants No. 1 and 2 from selling, transferring, mortgaging, alienating, or parting with possession of the Suit Property without the Plaintiffs written consent.

And;

(f) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction, directing Defendant No. 3 (MCD) to cancel the mutation of the Suit Property in the name of Defendant No. 2, based on the forged Will dated 11^th January 1999, and to record the Plaintiff as the owner of a one-third share. And;

(g) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Material on record indicates that the Plaintiff had filed a Suit, being CS DJ No. 78603/2016 was filed by the Plaintiff before the Additional District Judge, North-West Rohini Courts, Delhi, seeking declaration, partition and injunction. It is stated that in the said Suit an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the Defendants for rejection of the said Plaint and the learned Additional District Judge, vide Order dated 30.10.2023 allowed the said Application and rejected the Suit by observing as under:

“13. I am of the view that even if the amendments so sought were to be allowed, the basic issue regarding necessity of relief of possession could not have changed. In such circumstances, I find it proper not to give any opinion on the amendment and impleadment so sought. The reason is obvious. Even if a plaint is rejected, the plaintiff is entitled to bring a fresh suit subject to limitation law. If such suit is brought by the plaintiff, disposal of amendment and impleadment application may create problem.

14. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the suit could not have been filed without praying for relief of possession. There would a clear legal bar under Section 34 and Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. This legal bar is clearly apparent on the face of the plaint without going into any claim made by the defendants. A bare reading of averments in the plaint have shown the necessity of relief of possession. For arriving at this conclusion, neither there is any requirement of defendant's version nor of any evidence. In such circumstances, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC will clearly come into picture.”

3. A perusal of the abovementioned Order does not show that liberty was granted to the Plaintiff to seek possession also in the fresh Suit.

4. Confronted with this, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks some time to produce some judgments to show that if a Plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that a relief has not been claimed and liberty has been granted to file a fresh suit then that liberty would also include modifying the prayer clause and/or adding a new prayer in the fresh suit, as has been done in the present Suit.

5. List on 25.02.2026 in the Supplementary list.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J FEBRUARY 4, 2026 Rahul