Appeal against a preliminary decree on admissions in a partition suit, filed after 599 days' delay. The court found the appellant had long known of the decree, had taken advantage of it, and offered no credible explanation for the delay; the appeal and pending applications were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
NATRAJ COMMERCIAL COMPLEX PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr Rishab Kaushik, Advocate. versus SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr S.K. Bhaduri, Mr Abid Khan, Mr Shreyangana Bag, Ms Neetu Gupta and Ms Rimpy Rohilla, Advocates for R-1. Mr Harkirat Singh, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 03.09.2024
CM APPL. 3212/2014 (for condonation of delay)
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2024 at 12:42:01
Shyam Prakash and Sh. Anand Prakash. Sh. Shyam Prakash expired on 03.04.2021 and his widow Smt. Kailash Malhotra had pre-deceased him. According to the plaintiff, the share of Late Shri Shyam Prakash in the suit property devolved on the plaintiff and respondent nos. 2 and 3 (defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit). The share of Late Sh. Anand Prakash devolved on his daughter Mrs Aarti Malhotra (respondent no.4/ defendant no.3 in the suit). The material averments made in the plaint were not denied by the defendants. Accordingly, a preliminary decree on admissions was passed holding that 50% share of the suit property belonging to Late Sh. Shyam Prakash had devolved upon the plaintiff, defendant nos.1 and 2 in equal ratio (one third each) and remaining 50% share of Late Sh. Anand Prakash had devolved upon defendant no.3, being the only surviving heir. The Local Commissioner was also appointed for division of the suit property by metes and bounds. 3. The appellant in the present case was not a party to the said suit at the material time. The appellant claims that it had entered into an Agreement to Sell the suit property with Sh. Shyam Prakash and defendant no.3 (Mrs Aarti Malhotra).
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2024 at 12:42:01
failure to challenge the preliminary decree. However, this does not explain the delay in filing the present appeal.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J
SEPTEMBER 03, 2024 RK
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2024 at 12:42:01
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a 599-day delay in filing an appeal against a preliminary decree on admissions should be condoned where no credible explanation was offered.
Natraj Commercial Complex Pvt. Ltd.
Sanjeev Kumar
Respondent No. 2 (defendant no.1 in the suit)
Respondent No. 3 (defendant no.2 in the suit)
Aarti Malhotra (respondent no.4 / defendant no.3 in the suit)
Vibhu Bakhru
Sachin Datta
As recorded by the court registry
A first appeal against a decree of a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
