$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2377/2026 and CM APPL. 11590/2026 ELLIS J D AHUJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhijit Singh, Advocate.

versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr Sunil Choudhary, Advocate for R1.

Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate, Mr Vikram Singh Panwar, Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Mr. Monu Kumar, Advocates for R2.

Mr. N Hariharan, Sr. Adv, Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Ms. Kanika Singh, Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv, Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv., B.S. Dhir, Ms. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Amit Choudhary, Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Mr. Shrey Sharawat, Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Mr. Lakshay Kaushik, Advs. for DHCBA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026

1. The petitioner is a widow and practicing advocate since 1988 and is a joint-allottee of half portion of Chamber 373, Old Lawyers’ Chamber Block at the High Court of Delhi. The original allottee was her husband namely, late Jagat Singh, who has passed away on 06.11.2025. During his lifetime, the name of the petitioner was inducted as a co-allottee. The petitioner submits that private respondent nos.4 and 5 who, are the brothers-in-law of the petitioner, having no right or legal authority over the chamber, have repeatedly tress-passed into the petitioner’s chamber, broke open locks, abused and threaten her with a view to dispossess her of the same. The grievance, therefore, is that despite various representations to the Registrar General, no action has been taken in this regard.

2. Mr. Sunil Choudhary, learned counsel who appears for respondent no.1 on advance instructions, submits that the dispute essentially is between family members of late Jagat Singh, and therefore, the petitioner would have to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

3. The Court, at this stage, is not going into the aspect of the dispute between the petitioner and the other family members of late Jagat Singh. If there exists any civil dispute between the parties, the same has to be adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. This Court is only concerned about the free and peaceful enjoyment of the chamber of the petitioner, so long as, the same continues to be in her name. If there is any unnecessary obstruction by any miscreants, the Registrar General, being the administrative authority, can certainly look into the same and do the needful. If a complaint is made to the Registrar General, he may look into the aspect of disturbances created within the premises of the High Court. The Chamber in question has been allotted to eligible lawyers and is situated within the premises of the High Court.

5. Therefore, at this stage, the Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with the directions to respondent no.1 to look into the petitioner’s grievance and to do the needful in accordance with law.

6. If the petitioner, thereafter, has any grievance, she shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

7. With these observations, the petition and all pending application stand disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 19, 2026 tr/amg