$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 79/2020, I.A. 2633/2020, I.A. 15177/2021 & I.A. 894/2022 MRS. ANITA AHUJA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Ms. Ambareen, Mr. Arun Pal, Ms. Zaki, Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Ms. Sonam and Ms. Sanjana Dalal, Advs.

versus MS. RITU MEHTA & ORS.

.....Defendant Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Chauhan, Ms. Alina Hashmi and Ms. Kanishka Aggarwal, Advs. for D-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 17.02.2026

1. The present suit has been filed seeking partition of the suit property bearing no. C-575, Gali no. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033 admeasuring 91.5 Sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

2. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, as well as, defendant nos.1 and 2 are the daughters of Sh. Chander Prakash.

3. The defendant no. 3 is a third party with whom defendant no. 1 had allegedlyentered into an Agreement to Sell.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Sh. Chander Prakash died intestate on 01.12.2017 without leaving any Will, hence, the plaintiff alongwith her two sisters i.e. defendant no. 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit property.

5. Attention of the Court has been drawn to para 4 and 5 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has alleged with regard to late Sh. Chander Prakash dying intestate and share of the plaintiff being 1/3^rd . Defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the corresponding paragraph of written statement have not been controverted this fact, rather defendant no. 1 has stated that contents of para

4 of the suit are not denied.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff further refers to the order dated 23.05.2025 wherein it has been recorded that right of defendant no. 2 and 3 to file written statement has alreadybeen closed.

7. However, in the said order the statement of counsel for defendant no.1 is also recorded to the effect that if plaintiff is ready and willing to give defendant no.1 her 1/3^rd equal share as per partition laws, she will not contest the suit.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 1 submits that he has no objection in case the preliminary decree is passed as prayed. However, there is no appearance on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3.

9. Having regard to the admission made by the defendant no. 1 and there being no written statement of defendant no. 2 on record, the averments made in the plaint have remained uncontroverted, therefore, there is no use of putting the suit to trial and recording of evidence.

10. Hence, a preliminary decree is hereby passed declaring that plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and 2 shall have 1/3^rd share each in the suit property.

11. A preliminarydecree be prepared in the above terms.

12. Status quo order dated 25.02.2020 is made absolute during the pendency of the suit.

13. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 urges the Court that a Local Commissioner may be appointed to visit the suit property and to assess as to whether the suit propertycan be divided by metes and bounds or not.

14. In view of the above, Ms. Saumya Gupta, Advocate [Mobile No.9711959599] is appointed as local commissioner to visit the suit property bearing no. C-575, Gali no. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033 and interact with the parties and suggest whether the suit property can be partitioned by metes and bounds amongst the parties to the suit, having regard to their respective shares.

15. The Local Commissioner will visit the aforesaid property after giving due notice to the counsel for the parties. The parties and/or their respective counsels mayremain present at the time of execution of commission.

16. All the parties shall extend support and cooperation to the Local Commissioner and give him access to the portions of the suit property in their respective possession to enable him to carry out inspection, and provide all necessary documents/site plan etc. as be requested by the Local Commissioner.

17. In case, exact division o