Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 8
SUCCESSION COURT 50/25
BABLI Vs. State NCT OF DELHI
18.03.2026
Present: Sh. Yogendra Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
alongwith petitioner.
Ms. Sarita Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
no.2.
Sh. Vaibhav Yadav, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3
(Through VC)
Ld. Counsel for petitioner has not complied with
order regarding supplying the copy of petition with all the
documents to the respondent no. 2 till date. Ld. Counsel for
petitioner submits that the same shall be complied today itself.
Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to comply
the same.
Put up for order at 4:00 pm.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/18.03.2026
At 4:00 PM
Order on Application under Order 39 Rule 3 & 4, Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908
1. The instant application has been filed by Respondent No.2
(hereinafter ‘R2’), seeking vacation of stay which was granted
vide order dated 13.12.2025.
Contd…..
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Submission of R2
2. R-2 submits that the aforesaid order was granted by way
of ex-parte ad interim injunction order and same was passed
without giving opportunity to R2. Further, Ld. Counsel for R2
relies on Rule 3 of Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter ‘CPC’). The Ld. Counsel for R2 also relies upon the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Time
City Infrastructure & Housing Limited Lucknow Versus The
State of U.P., in SLP No. 21747/2025.
Submission of Petitioner
3. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has opposed the
above application on the ground that stay was granted to preserve
the subject matter of instant petition and if the stay is vacated the
petition would be rendered infructuous. Further argued that
vacating the stay would cause irreparable injury to the Petitioner
and the status of R2 being that of nominee only does not entitle
her to exclusively inherit the estate of the deceased.
Analysis and Findings
4. The mandate of Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, is well-settled: ex-parte ad-interim
injunctions are to be granted sparingly and ordinarily for a
limited duration only. The purpose is to afford the opposite party
an opportunity to appear and be heard, enabling the Court to pass
a reasoned order after considering both sides.
Contd…..
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
5. Where non-compliance with the procedure for ex-parte
relief is established, the injunction is liable to be vacated without
delving into the merits, in terms of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd. v.
State of U.P. (2025 INSC 966).
6. The facts of the present case, however, present a distinct
position. The main petition seeks adjudication of entitlement to a
succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased. The
holder of such certificate would be entitled to receive the
corresponding share of the estate/compensation.
7. Vacation of the existing stay in toto would result in an
irreversible situation: if Respondent No. 3 is permitted to release
the entire compensation amount to R2, the object of the present
petition would be rendered infructuous.
8. A perusal of the petition discloses that both the petitioner
and R2 are admittedly legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner
concedes the status and entitlement of R2 as a legal heir; the
dispute pertains only to the petitioner's own claim.
9. In the interest of justice and to prevent R2 from being
rendered without means, R2 ought not to be denied access to at
least half the compensation amount.
Contd…..
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
Procedural rules are handmaids of justice; no real prejudice is
caused to the petitioner if Respondent No. 3 is directed to
disburse half the compensation amount to R2, subject to its by-
laws/rules. Accordingly, the stay is vacated subject to disbursal of
half of the compensation amount.
10. The remaining half of the compensation amount shall
remain secured and subject to final adjudication on merits in the
main petition.
11. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
12. List the main petition before the Roster Bench on
25.03.2026 for further proceedings.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to Respondent No. 3
forthwith for immediate compliance.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/18.03.2026
-- 4 of 4 --