Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 3 Civ Suit 433/25
Sunita Vs. Pankaj Kumar Sharma
07.02.2026
Present: Sh. Md. Yamin, Ld. counsel for plaintiff alongwith
plaintiff.
None for D-1 despite service vide order dated
10.11.2025.
Sh. Amit Thakur, Ld. proxy counsel for D-2/Rajesh
Kumar.
Sh. Balmukund Singh, Ld. counsel for D-3.
As D-1 not filed WS within prescribed period
despite service vide order dated 10.11.2025, so, right to file WS
stands closed for D-1/Pankaj Kumar Sharma.
Replication filed by plaintiff to WS of D-3/Rakesh
Sharma.
WS not filed by D-2 within prescribed period, so,
right to file WS stands closed for D-2/Rajesh.
Arguments advanced by plaintiff on an application
u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Ld. counsel for D-3 seek short passover for
advancing the arguments.
At request & convenience of Ld. counsel for D-3,
matter is passed over for 12 PM.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
07.02.2026
-- 1 of 4 --
At 12:30 PM.
Present: Sh. Md. Yamin, Ld. counsel for plaintiff alongwith
plaintiff.
None for D-1 despite service vide order dated
10.11.2025.
Sh. Amit Thakur, Ld. proxy counsel for D-2/Rajesh
Kumar.
Sh. Balmukund Singh, Ld. counsel for D-3.
Arguments advanced on an application u/o 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC.
Orders during course of the day.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
07.02.2026
At 01:00 PM.
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application
under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff
for restraining the defendant from creating any third party
interest in the suit property bearing no. E-415, Gali No. 1, Near
Kanhiya Public School, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94, as shown
in Red Colour in site plan.
In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that suit
property was originally purchased by Sh. Om Prakash by virtue
-- 2 of 4 --
of GPA dated 20.12.1992, who was father of defendants and
father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1 and happens to be grandfather of
plaintiff no. 2. The suit property was in control and possession of
Sh. Om Prakash. On 10.02.1997, Sh. Om Prakash executed the
GPA, Agreement to Sell, thereby, transferring the said property
formally in favour of his four sons i.e. defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3
and late Sh. Vinod Kumar i.e. husband of plaintiff no. 1. So,
plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit property in the
capacity of LR of late Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma. The families of
plaintiff as well as defendants are in joint possession of suit
property. The plaintiff requested the defendants for demarcation
of their shares and also issued legal notice dated 28.07.2025 but
all in vain.
In WS filed by defendant no. 3, it is submitted on
behalf of defendant no. 3 that the plaintiff has deliberately not
disclosed all the immoveable property of deceased Sh. Om
Prakash Sharma as Om Prakash Sharma was having other
properties also. The plaintiff has filed the present suit with
ulterior motive.
Perusal of pleading shows that the plaintiff in co-
ownership and co-possession of suit property alongwith
defendants and has sought the relief of partition. Being the co-
owner and co-possessor of suit property, the plaintiff has prima
facie case in her favour. Since, the present suit pertains to
immovable property, so plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the
-- 3 of 4 --
present application is not allowed. Accordingly, balance of
convenience also tilts in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant. In view of above, the application u/o 39 Rules 1 & 2
CPC filed by plaintiff is allowed and the defendants are
restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit
property i.e. property bearing no. E-415, Gali No. 1, Near
Kanhiya Public School, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94, as shown
in Red Colour in site plan till the disposal of the suit. Nothing
stated herein above shall tantamount to be my expression on
merits of the case.
Matter is adjourned for replication, admission-denial
and framing of issues.
It be relisted on 05.05.2026.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
07.02.2026
-- 4 of 4 --