Delhi High Court · 2026-01-23
M/S CAPITAL LAND BUILDER PVT LTD vs M/S SHAHEED MEMORIAL SOCIETY (REG) & ORS
- Citation / case number
- FAO(OS)-90/2019 2026:DHC:593-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- M/S CAPITAL LAND BUILDER PVT LTD
- Respondent
- M/S SHAHEED MEMORIAL SOCIETY (REG) & ORS
Judgment text excerpt
$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + FAO(OS) 90/2019 and CM APPLs. 5090-91/2026 M/S CAPITAL LAND BUILDER PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: versus M/S SHAHEED MEMORIAL SOCIETY (REG) & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikash Dhawan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Negi, Adv., Mr. Manoj Bansal, AR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 5089/2026 1. The captioned appeal was disposed of vide consent order dated 22.01.2024, which had to operate as an interim arrangement between the parties for sale of land and property owned by the appellant until the final disposal of the suit. Further directions were issued vide subsequent order dated 26.04.2024 for the implementation of the said interim arrangement. 2. The present application has been filed by a third-party (i.e., stranger to the proceedings) seeking recall of the orders dated 22.01.2024 and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 90/2019 Page 1 of 4 By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:31.01.2026 12:02:11 26.04.2024, on the ground that the applicant/third-party claims to have rival claim to the land and property sought to be sold by the appellant. It is stated that the appellant has filed an independent civil suit1 against the appellant herein, which is pending before the District Court in respect of the title to the suit land2. 3. The applicant submits that the orders dated 22.01.2024 and 26.04.2024 have gravely prejudiced the applicant, inasmuch as the appellant herein by these orders has obtained permission from this Court to sell land parcels which are owned by the applicant and form the subject matter of a pending lis between the applicant and the appellant. It is averred that the app