Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 6
CS/380/2025
DLNE010031392025
DEVENDER OJHA
Vs.
RASHID KHAN
07.08.2026
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs.
Ld. Counsel for D-1.
Ld. Counsel for D-2 to D-6 with D-4 in person.
Ld. Counsel for D-7 and D-8.
1. D-2 to D-6 have moved IA No. 2/26 seeking condonation of
delay on the ground that the written statement could not be filed
because of child birth to one of the defendants i.e. D-6 and
because of some bereavement in the family. Copy is stated to
have not been supplied.
2. Counsel for plaintiff strongly opposes the application and
claims that the death in the family was sometime in September
2025 and this cannot be a ground to condone the delay.
3. Matter is at an initial stage and pleadings in the matter are yet to
complete. Thus, taking a liberal view, the delay in filing of
written statement of D-2 to D-6 is condoned. Their written
statement is taken on record.
4. The written statement of D-7 and D-8 was also filed with delay.
On the oral plea of Counsel for the said defendants, the delay in
filing of the said written statement is also condoned.
5. D-1 has filed his written statement today. With the said written
statement, D-1 has preferred an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing of his written statement. Copy
-- 1 of 3 --
supplied. For reasons stated in the application, the delay in
filing of WS by D-1 is condoned.
6. Thus, written statement of each of the defendants has come on
the record.
7. At this stage, Counsel for plaintiff presses his application (IA
No. 1/26) U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
8. Counsel for D-1 on one hand and D-7 and D-8 on the other
hand submit that they have no objection in case the injunction
in the manner prayed in the application is granted to the
plaintiff.
9. No submission is made on behalf of D-2 to D-6.
10.Counsel for plaintiff submits that in this case, plaintiffs are
seeking a share in property bearing No. T-322 (Old No. T-464),
Gali No. 8, Gautam Puri, Delhi-110053. He submits that
plaintiffs have 1/5th share each in the suit property as they are
the legal heirs of late Smt. Ram Murti. It is not disputed before
this Court that late Ram Murti had three sons [P-1, Mithlesh
Ojha (represented by P-1 to P-5) and Om Prakash Ojha
(represented by D-2 to D-6)] and two daughters (D-7 to D-8).
Prima facie it appears that the said heirs of Ram Murti have a
share in the property and thus, balance of convenience is also in
favour of the plaintiffs. In case an interim injunction restraining
the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit
property is not granted, the loss suffered by the plaintiffs may
not be easily compensated in terms of money.
-- 2 of 3 --
11.Considering the above, the defendants are restrained from
creating any third party interest in the suit property described
above till the pendency of the present suit.
12.Application is disposed off.
13.Plaintiffs to file replication within 30 days from today with
copy to the other side.
14.Parties to also file their affidavits of admission/denial before
next date.
15.List on 09.10.2026.
Aashish Gupta
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
07.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --