Dismissed

Bhavesh Madan v. Anju Chadha & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Dec 2025FAO(OS)/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal contesting the rejection of a plaintiff's plaint regarding property partition. The court upheld that partial rejection of a plaint under CPC Order VII Rule 11 is impermissible and dismissed the delay condonation application.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; leave granted to file appropriate application to exclude specific property from the suit.

Bhavesh Madan Vs Anju Chadha & Anr. — Partition | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 155/2025

¶4

BHAVESH MADAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahindru, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

ANJU CHADHA & ANR. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 16.12.2025

¶12

CM APPL. 79136/2025 (Delay of 28 days in filing Appeal)

¶13

By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the present Appeal.

¶14

For the sufficient reasons as stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

¶15

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶16

CM APPL. 79135/2025 (Exemption)

¶17

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

Application stands disposed of.

¶19

FAO(OS) 155/2025

¶20

The Defendant No.1 (Appellant herein) assails the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as 8CPC9], to reject the Plaintiff9s plaint at the threshold.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 18/12/2025 at 12:26:35

¶23

The Plaintiff (Respondent No.1 herein) filed suit for partition, decree for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. She is one of the children of late Sh. Ramesh Chand Madan and late Smt. Kamlesh Madan, who are stated to have died intestate. They left behind the Plaintiff, the daughter and two sons, namely, Bhavesh Madan and Suresh Madan.

¶24

8. The Plaintiff sought partition of the following properties: -

¶25

Immovable Properties:

¶26

(i) l/3rd share of Smt. Kamlesh Madan in Property No. 4360A4362, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi.

¶27

(ii) 1/3rd share of Smt. Kamlesh Madan in Property No. 4361, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi.

¶28

(iii) 1/3rd share out of l/4th share in Property No. D-3, LSC 2, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (owned by late Sh. R. C. Madan).

¶29

(iv) Property in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Haryana (owned by late Sh. R. C. Madan).

¶30

(v) Property in Village Anangpur , Haryana (owned by late Sh. R. C. Madan).

¶31

(vi) Property No. 136, Mandakini Enclave, New Delhi.

¶32

Movable Assets:

¶33

(vii) All bank accounts, fixed deposits, and investments held in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Madan.

¶34

(viii) Locker held by Smt. Kamlesh Madan in DCB Bank, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi.

¶35

Shares and Business Interests:

¶36

(ix) Shares of Smt. Kamlesh Madan in Travellers (India) Forex Blue Pvt. Ltd.

¶37

(x) Shares of Smt. Kamlesh Madan in Madan Travellers Guest House Pvt. Ltd.

¶38

(xi) Joint family businesses, including:

¶39

a. Travellers (India) Forex Blue Pvt. Ltd.

¶40

b. Madan Travellers Guest House Pvt. Ltd.

¶41

c. Madan Stores

¶42

The application has been dismissed on the ground that the plaint cannot be rejected in part.

¶43

Learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that the

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 18/12/2025 at 12:26:35

¶46

property enlisted at Serial No.(vi) has wrongly been included in the suit. He submits that this property belongs to the Appellant (Defendant no.1) and his wife.

¶47

This Court has considered the submission. As already noticed, the rejection of a part of the plaint is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶48

In these circumstances, the Appellant, if so advised, may filean appropriate application before the Court for excluding the property located at Mandakini Enclave, from the suit. If such application is filed, the Court will decide the same in accordance with law.

¶49

With these observations, there is no ground to interfere and the present Appeal is dismissed.

¶50

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶51

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 16, 2025 /sp/ra

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

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 18/12/2025 at 12:26:35

Bhavesh Madan v. Anju Chadha & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavesh Madan v. Anju Chadha & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anu (Since Deceased) Thru Lr Vs Suresh Verma (Since Deceased through Lrs) & Ors.

Msa Global Llc Oman Vs Engineering Projects India Limited

Abdul Nasir Khatri & Anr. Vs Fazlu Rehman Khatri & Ors.

Dk Jain (Since Deceased Thr His Legal Heirs) Vs Cs Agarwal and Anr.

Ghanshyam Khohar Vs Madan Mohan through His Legal Heirs & Ors.

Msa Global Llc (Oman) Vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Vipin Kumar Manaktala, Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Dead through Lr Shri Karun Manaktala & Ors.

Arya Orphanage through Its President Sh Sudhir Kumar Gupta Vs Mukti Dutta & Ors.

Smt Sharmila Singh & Anr. Vs Master Abhimanyu Singh

Anu (Since Deceased) Thru Lr Vs Suresh Verma (Since Deceased through Lrs) & Ors.

Msa Global Llc Oman Vs Engineering Projects India Limited

Rajni Sharma Vs Canara Bank & Ors.

Lalit Kumar Vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors.

Msa Global Llc (Oman) Vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. & Ors.