Final Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 822/25 ARIB IFTIKHAR Vs. ABRAR AHMED
Page no. 1/6
13.10.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the present application filed by the
defendants under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
seeking stay of the present proceedings.
2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a
decree of permanent injunction against the defendants namely Abrar
Ahmed and Noorul Amin (hereinafter referred to as defendant no. 1
and defendant no.2 respectively) restraining them from interfering
with the alleged peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from creating
any third-party interest in respect of a shop situated on the ground floor
of property bearing no. 2841-2842, Bulbuli Khana, Bazar Sitaram,
Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father, namely Sh. Iftikhar Ahmed,
became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a Gift
Deed/Hiba Nama along with an affidavit dated 08.03.2010 executed
by Late Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmed. It is further averred that the suit property
was under the tenancy of one Haider and that possession thereof was
obtained on 30.04.2025. According to the plaintiff, he shifted his office
to the suit property on 02.05.2025 and on 03.05.2025 the defendants
visited the premises and threatened the plaintiff's employee to vacate
the same. Apprehending dispossession, the present suit came to be
filed.
-- 1 of 6 --
CS SCJ 822/25 ARIB IFTIKHAR Vs. ABRAR AHMED
Page no. 2/6
4. The defendants have contested the suit and have denied the claim of
exclusive possession of the plaintiff. It is stated that the tenant Haider
was in fact the tenant of defendant no.2 and was paying rent directly to
him. It is further pleaded that possession of the suit property was
obtained by defendant no.2 from the said tenant on 28.02.2025 through
an acknowledgment of possession letter and since then defendant no.2
has been in possession thereof.
5. The defendants have further pleaded that a partition suit bearing CS
DJ No.468/2024 concerning the very same property is pending
adjudication before a competent court. It is stated that the father of the
plaintiff is one of the parties to the said partition suit and the plaintiff
claims his rights only through his father. It is also averred that in an
earlier eviction petition bearing RC/ARC No.80190/2016 jointly
instituted by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants against the
erstwhile tenant, the father of the plaintiff had admitted that the parties
were joint owners of the property.
6. Now coming to the present application, the defendants have contended
that the original owner of the property was Late Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmed,
who was the father of defendant nos.1 and 2 and the grandfather of the
plaintiff. After his demise, disputes arose amongst the legal heirs and a
partition suit came to be instituted by one of the daughters. It is
submitted that in the said partition suit a categorical plea has been taken
that all the shops forming part of the estate, including the present suit
property, are in joint possession of the legal heirs and that rents were
being collected by defendant no.2 on behalf of all co-sharers. It is thus
-- 2 of 6 --
CS SCJ 822/25 ARIB IFTIKHAR Vs. ABRAR AHMED
Page no. 3/6
argued that the question as to who is entitled to possession of the suit
property and whether any legal heir has an exclusive right therein is
directly and substantially in issue in the partition suit. Consequently,
continuation of the present proceedings may result in conflicting
findings by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
7. Despite opportunities granted, no formal reply to the present
application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however,
addressed arguments opposing the application. On the other hand, the
defendants placed on record certified copies of pleadings filed in the
partition suit, including the written statement of the father of the
plaintiff.
8. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the
parties and have carefully perused the record.
9. The principal contention of the plaintiff is founded upon the Gift
Deed/Hiba Nama dated 08.03.2010 through which his father is alleged
to have acquired exclusive ownership rights in the suit property.
However, the material placed on record by the defendants reveals that
a comprehensive partition suit concerning the estate of Late Sh.
Ishtiyaq Ahmed is presently pending adjudication. The father of the
plaintiff is admittedly a party to the said proceedings and claims rights
in the estate of the deceased.
10.A perusal of the plaint filed in the partition suit shows that a specific
assertion has been made that the properties left behind by Late Sh.
Ishtiyaq Ahmed continue to be jointly owned and possessed by his legal
-- 3 of 6 --
CS SCJ 822/25 ARIB IFTIKHAR Vs. ABRAR AHMED
Page no. 4/6
heirs. It has further been pleaded therein that various portions of the
property, including shops, remained under the management of
defendant no.2 who was collecting rent on behalf of all legal heirs.
11.Significantly, a perusal of the written statement filed by the father of
the plaintiff in the said partition suit does not reveal any categorical
plea asserting his exclusive possession over the present suit property.
Rather, the controversy regarding the nature and extent of rights of the
legal heirs in the estate of Late Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmed is the very subject
matter of adjudication in the partition proceedings.
12.The present suit has been framed as one seeking protection of
possession. However, the foundation of such possession is the claim of
exclusive title and entitlement flowing from the alleged Gift Deed/Hiba
Nama. The defendants have specifically disputed such exclusive
entitlement and have asserted joint ownership and joint possession over
the suit property. Therefore, the determination of possession in the
present suit cannot be divorced from the larger issue concerning the
nature of rights of the parties in the property, which is already pending
consideration before the concerned court which is seized of the
partition suit.
13.Section 10 CPC embodies the principle that where the matter in issue
in a subsequently instituted suit is directly and substantially in issue in
a previously instituted suit between the same parties or parties litigating
under the same title, the subsequent suit ought to remain stayed so as to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial findings.
-- 4 of 6 --
CS SCJ 822/25 ARIB IFTIKHAR Vs. ABRAR AHMED
Page no. 5/6
14.In the present case, although the plaintiff is not a party by name in the
partition suit, his claim is admittedly derived through his father who is
a party to the said proceedings. The plaintiff is therefore litigating under
the same title as his father. The determination of the rights of the father
of the plaintiff in the partition suit would directly impact and govern
the rights now claimed by the plaintiff in the present proceedings.
15.This Court is therefore of the considered view that the issue as to
whether the suit property forms part of the joint estate of Late Sh.
Ishtiyaq Ahmed or whether any exclusive rights accrued in favour of
the father of the plaintiff by virtue of the alleged Gift Deed/Hiba Nama
is directly and substantially involved in the previously instituted
partition suit. Any adjudication by this Court regarding possession and
entitlement over the suit property, before the determination of such
issues by the court seized of the partition suit, may result in conflicting
findings and would defeat the object underlying Section 10 CPC.
16.The conditions contemplated under Section 10 CPC stand substantially
satisfied. The previously instituted partition suit is pending before a
competent court. The parties are litigating under the same title and the
issue relating to rights, possession and entitlement in respect of the suit
property is directly and substantially involved therein.
17.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds merit in the present
application. Accordingly, the application under Section 10 CPC is
allowed.
-- 5 of 6 --
CS SCJ 822/25 ARIB IFTIKHAR Vs. ABRAR AHMED
Page no. 6/6
18.Consequently, further proceedings in the present suit are hereby stayed
till the final adjudication of Partition Suit bearing CS DJ
No.468/2024 or till further orders of the Court.
19.Parties are directed to place on record the outcome of the aforesaid
partition suit as and when the same is decided.
20.The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
(This order contains 6 pages
and each page has been signed by me.)
Announced in the open court (MILAN GOEL)
on 13.10.2026 Civil Judge-08
(Central)/Delhi
-- 6 of 6 --