Delhi High Court · 2025-11-27
NIKITA JAIN ALIAS NIKKI JAIN & ANR. vs RAM PHAL ALIAS RAM PAL AND ANR
- Citation / case number
- CM(M)-2292/2025 2025:DHC:10527
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- NIKITA JAIN ALIAS NIKKI JAIN & ANR.
- Respondent
- RAM PHAL ALIAS RAM PAL AND ANR
Judgment text excerpt
$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 + CM(M) 2292/2025, CM APPL. 74340/2025 & CM APPL. 74339/2025 NIKITA JAIN ALIAS NIKKI JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Mr. S. K. Jain, Mr. Nalin Hingorani and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocates. versus RAM PHAL ALIAS RAM PAL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate for R- 2. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R (ORAL) 1. Petitioners/plaintiffs have assailed order dated 15.10.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby their application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice, though learned counsel for respondent no.2 is present in court on advance intimation. 2. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. 2.1 The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of declaration that the registered sale deed executed by defendant no.1 (the present respondent no.1) in favour of defendant no.2 (the present respondent no.2) is null and CM(M) 2292/2025 Page 1 of 6 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569 af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099 6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, Digitally Signed cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.27 18:20:11 -08'00' By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:27.11.2025 18:22:21 void; and for decree of mesne profits/damages and injunction from creating third party interest. 2.2 The issues in the suit were framed, including issue no.4 as to whether the ownership documents of the pe