C.S. (OS) No.2672/2013 Page 1 of 7

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

C.S. (OS) No.2672 of 2013

Decided on : 3^rd January, 2014

AMARDEEP SINGH CHANDHOK & ANR.

…… Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta,

Mr. Amit Kumar & Mr. Piyush Kaushik,

Advocates.

Versus

KULBIR SINGH CHANDHOK & ORS.

…… Defendants

Through:

Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advocate for D-1 & 9.

Counsel for D-2 to 8;

(appearance not given).

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

I.A. No.21254/2013

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1

& 2 CPC.

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition, declaration, rendition of

accounts and permanent injunction. The case setup by the plaintiffs in

the plaint was that the plaintiffs are the grand sons of Late Sh. Man Singh

Chandhok and that the defendant No.1, Kulbir Singh Chandhok, their

2014:DHC:52

C.S. (OS) No.2672/2013 Page 2 of 7

father, is trying to divest them of their legitimate share in the three

properties, details of which are given in Schedule A attached to the plaint

being the ancestral properties. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are

entitled to 1/6^th undivided share in property No.B-39, Greater Kailash,

Part-I, New Delhi, i.e., 50 per cent share in the ground floor and 50 per

cent share in the 1/3^rd portion of the basement and roof rights. The share

is also sought to be claimed in property No.149, Kilokari, near Maharani

Bagh, New Delhi and property No.KC-7A, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. It has

been alleged in the plaint that the aforesaid three properties have been

purchased from the funds arising from the business which was being run

by their late grandfather. The plaintiffs have also prayed in the plaint in

the prayer clause as under :-

“a) Pass a preliminary decree for partition of the property detailed

in Schedule-A declaring plaintiffs to be the owner of 50 per

cent, i.e., half share in the each and every property as detailed

out in Schedule-A;

b)

Pass a final decree for partition of the property as detailed out

in Schedule-A declaring the plaintiffs owner of the 50 per

cent/half share, i.e, 1/4^th share each in the property as detailed

out in Schedule-A;

c)

Appoint Local Commissioner directing Local Commissioner

to suggest modalities on partition of the suit property by metes

and bounds and visit the suit property and examine books and

2014:DHC:52

C.S. (OS) No.2672/2013 Page 3 of 7

accounts of all the properties as stated in Schedule „A‟ and

further to prepare a report detailing out the account of assets

and liability;

d)

Pass a decree of partition allocating 50 per cent, i.e, 1/2 share

of the plaintiffs in the immovable property as per the report

prepared by the Local Commissioner and further directing the

plaintiff to be put in possession of share allocated to plaintiff;

e)

Pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, their agents, employees, liens or other persons in

any way from selling, transferring, alienating, disposition,

dispossessing or dealing with the properties as set out and

detailed in Schedule „A‟;

f)

Pass such other and further order/orders as may be deemed fit

and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.”

3. This court on the very first date, that is, on 27.12.2013 during

vacation, was pleased to pass an ex parte ad interim stay restraining the

defendant No.1 only from creating any third party interest in respect of

the aforesaid three properties till 30.12.2013 so as to ensure that no

prej