SANTRA DEVI vs SANTOSH KAUSHIK & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 06th April, 2026 Pronounced on: 30th May, 2026 + CS(OS) 188/2024 & I.A. 31975/2024 SANTRA DEVI .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vikas Kumar and Ms. Lakshita Bansal, Advocate Mob: 9873213672 Email: [email protected] versus SANTOSH KAUSHIK & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ms. Nidhi Dalal, Mr. Alok Kumar, Ms. Rachana Dalal and Mr. Karan Mann, Advocates for D-1,2,4,6 & 7. Mob: 7082348017 Email: [email protected] CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA JUDGMENT MINI PUSHKARNA, J. I.A. 31975/2024 1. The present suit has been filed seeking partition, declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the property, i.e., forming part of Khasra nos. 936/1, 936/2, and 941/1, situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi- 110042, owned by Late Sh. Brahm Dutt. 2. The present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 188/2024 Page 1 of 25 By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.05.2026 21:57:32 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), by defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, seeking rejection of plaint, on various grounds. 3. Before adverting to the matter at hand, this Court notes that vide order dated 28th October, 2024, the plaintiff had made the statement that they do not wish to file a reply to the present application. The relevant portion of order dated 28th October, 2024, is reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx 3. No reply to the captioned IA has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the plaintiff does not wish to file reply to the captioned IA and they will straightaway argue the same. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Accordingly, no reply has been filed by the plaintiff to the present application. 5. It is th