Plaintiff sought directions under Section 28(1) Specific Relief Act in a suit over a property settlement. Defendant no.3's counsel stated the sale deed was executed; other defendants served but absent. Court listed matter for hearing.
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.
$~34
M/S ATISHAY JAIN CONSTRUCTIONS .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr Sahil Sharma, Advocates. versus SH. ANIL KUMAR VERMA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Ms. Anusha, Advocate for D3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
O R D E R % 29.01.2026
I.A. 779/2026 (Application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff seeking necessary directions)
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
JANUARY 29, 2026/ jg
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 31/01/2026 at 14:21:01
1 issue framed by the court
Whether directions should issue regarding execution of sale deed per settlement for defendant no.3's 20% share in suit property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Atishay Jain Constructions
Sh. Anil Kumar Verma & Ors.
Vikas Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
A civil suit filed on the original side of a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
