A contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a status quo order in a partition suit was not pressed. The petitioner sought liberty to pursue remedies before the trial court; liberty was granted and all rights and contentions were left open.
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.
$~6
SMT INDU KHURANA(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sonal Anand, Mr. Aayush Sai & Ms. Surbhi Singh, Advs.
versus
SHRI SATISH KHURANA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kaustabh Bhardwaj, Mr. S.K. Tanwar & Ms. Surbhi Tanwar, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
II Any other Order in favour of the Plaintiff as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper.”
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 19/12/2025 at 13:00:47
thereto, the respondent started construction on the said property.
AMIT SHARMA, J
DECEMBER 16, 2025/ nk/sg
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 19/12/2025 at 13:00:47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated for alleged breach of a status quo order in a pending partition suit.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SMT INDU KHURANA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
SHRI SATISH KHURANA
OTHERS
AMIT SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
