$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.03.2026 + FAO(OS) 27/2026&CM APPL. 13876/2026 ARCHANA CHOPRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Sr.

Adv. with Mr. Soumya Dasgupta, Ms. Sugandh Virmani & Ms. Shambavi Dwivedi, Advs.

versus ANUJ GUGLANI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Eklavya Bahl & Mr. Apoorva Bahl, Advs./R1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 13877/2026(Exemption

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS) 27/2026

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assailing the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. NO. 8202 of 2025 in C.S. (OS) No. 3398 of 2015, whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, „CPC‟), seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

4. Briefly stated, the suit out of which the present appeal arises concerns the property bearing No. F-4/16, Model Town, Delhi (“the suit property”).As pleaded in the plaint, the suit property was purchased in the year 1957 allegedly out of joint family funds arranged by Dr. Chuni Lal Guglani and Smt. Ganesh Devi Guglani in the name of their son H.C. Guglani/Respondent No. 2. It is averred that the said property formed part of the family estate and was subsequently treated as property of a Hindu Undivided Family constituted in the name of “H.C. Guglani HUF”. It is further pleaded that Dr. Chuni Lal Guglani, Smt. Ganesh Devi Guglani and their children were members of the said HUF, with Respondent No. 2 acting as its Karta.

5. The Appellant claims to be a coparcener on the said HUF by birth and asserts that the suit property remained joint family property and was never partitioned. It is alleged that in 2014, Respondent No. 2 demolished the existing structure on the suit property and initiated construction in collaboration with other defendants, while simultaneously denying the existence of any HUF asserting exclusive ownership.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted the suit seeking partition of the suit property, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction, asserting his coparcenary rights in the alleged HUF property.

7. During the pendency of the suit, after the issues had been framed and the trial had commenced, and when the matter was at the stage of Plaintiff‟s evidence, the Appellant preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) seeking rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed vide the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

8. By way of the Impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the application filed by the Appellant, held that a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action and raises triable issues, including the nature and character of the suit property, the alleged constitution of the H.C. Guglani HUF, and the plaintiff‟s entitlement to seek partition and other reliefs, which would require adjudication upon evidence being led. It was further found that issues had already been framed by the Order dated 11.09.2018 and the suit progressed to the stage of plaintiff‟s evidence.

9. The Impugned Judgment and Order was primarily opposed on three grounds. First, it is contended that even if the averments made by the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff in the plaint are assumed to be correct, the suit is not maintainable as no HUF exists in view of the surviving legal heirs. Secondly, it is urged that the plaint does not contain proper and complete particulars regarding the suit property and the alleged funds, and therefore fails to disclose the material facts necessary to constitute a cause of action, as mandatorily required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC. Lastly, it i