##PAGE1##

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010453922026 + C.R.P. 284/2026, CM APPL. 65376/2026 NATIONAL LABOUR CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Agarwal, Advocate.

versus ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 22.09.2026 CM APPL.65374-75/2026 (Exemptions)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications is disposed of, accordingly. CM APPL.65377/2026 (Condonation of delay)

1. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in re-filing the petition. For the reasons stated in the said application, the delay of 13 days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.

2. Application is disposed of, accordingly.

C.R.P. 284/2026

1. This petition has been filed assailing impugned order dated 25^th July 2026 passed by the District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts in CS DJ No. 1536/2017, whereby the application filed by defendant under Order

7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was dismissed.

2. The suit was filed by the legal heirs of late Sh. Ramanand Pandey, who was employed with the defendant society, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 41,22,951/- and mandatory injunction. It was stated that the deceased commenced his career with the defendant society in the year 1982 and served as its Managing Director for 15 years.

3. After rendering approximately 34 years of service, he retired on 30^th June 2016. As per the terms of his employment and the Service Rules of the defendant society, the deceased was entitled to payment of his entire outstanding salary, including unpaid salary, arrears of increments, enhanced DA, etc., as well as his entire retirement benefits, including gratuity, contributory provident fund, employee provident fund, etc. It was stated in the suit that, as these dues were not paid by the defendant society, he was compelled to borrow money from various sources to meet the expenses of his family.

4. Unfortunately, he passed away on 07^th August 2016. Post his death, the plaintiffs, asserting themselves to be legal heirs, were seeking recovery of the said amounts from the defendant society.

5. The suit is presently at the stage of recording of evidence and is at an advanced stage of trial.

6. The defendant society moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that no Surviving Member Certificate was on record and that, in any event, no succession certificate had been produced.

7. Mr. Praveen Agarwal, counsel for defendant society/petitioner, states that, in fact, a Surviving Member Certificate was available on record, but a succession certificate had not been produced.

8. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Sunita v Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1326, wherein in a writ petition seeking release of gratuity, family pension, GPF, insurance and other retiral benefits of the petitioner’s husband, the Court, while directing release of the said benefits on the basis of a surviving member certificate, observed that a succession certificate is intended to certify that the petitioner is the legal heir to whom the retiral benefits accrued to the deceased are to be released. Court stated that the requirement of a succession certificate ensures that any other legal heirs of the deceased are precluded from subsequently claiming the retiral benefits and that the same are paid to the petitioner alone.

9. He further contends that, apart from the requirement of a succession certificate, the defendants have also disputed the amounts due and payable to the deceased, Ramanand Pandey.

10. On the basis of these submissions, the present petition has been pressed against the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

11. The Court has perused the impugned order and notes that the view taken by the Trial Court is correct. Institution of the suit cannot be prevented for lack of a succession cert