Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd APRIL, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
PRADEEP PRAKASH SACHDEV .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. N. S. Dalal, Ms. Nidhi Dalal, Mr. Alok Kumar and Ms. Rachana Dalal, Advocates
Through: Defendant - In person
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed by the Defendant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking stay on auction proceedings.
2. The present suit, is one for partition and consequential reliefs in respect of property bearing part of Plot No. 1, Road No. 71, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi admeasuring 444.[5] sq. yards, shown in yellow colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit Property’). It is stated that the entirety of the plot in question (measuring 1333.50 square yards) was owned by various persons, including the father of the parties herein, Major Shanti Prakash. It is stated that by virtue of the settlement between the original owners of the entire plot of 1333.50 square yards, which was SINGH KIRMOLIYA 14.52.42 recorded in the order dated 09.08.1976, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 168-D of 1965, the plot of 1333.50 square yards was partitioned equally amongst the co-owners, and Major Shanti Prakash was given possessory and ownership rights over the Suit Property. It is stated that upon the death of Major Shanti Prakash in 1995, the Suit Property devolved upon his widow Smt. Shano Prakash and his two sons, namely the Plaintiff and Defendant herein. It is stated that upon the death of Smt. Shano Prakash on 29.06.2022, disputes arose between the two brothers regarding partition and enjoyment of the Suit Property, leading the Plaintiff to institute the present Suit seeking partition of the Suit Property by metes and bounds and separation of his half share.
3. Summons in the Suit were issued on 09.09.2022, pleadings were completed. In the order dated 04.01.2023, it was expressly recorded that even according to the Will propounded by the Defendant, both brothers were entitled to 50% share each in the Suit Property, thereby narrowing the controversy substantially to the modalities of effecting partition. Thereafter, the Court referred the parties to mediation for working out the modalities of partition. Although mediation efforts continued through several hearings, no consensual arrangement could be reached. Consequently, on 11.05.2023, with consent of parties, this Court passed a preliminary decree declaring the Plaintiff and Defendant to be owners of 50% undivided share each in the Suit Property, while leaving the mode of final partition to be worked out subsequently. Even after passing of the preliminary decree, attempts were made through mediation and further proceedings to explore physical division, buy-out by one co-owner, or mutually agreed sale; however, by orders dated 26.02.2024 and 15.04.2024, it became evident that neither party 14.52.42 was willing to sell to the other and uncertainty persisted as to whether the property could at all be legally partitioned by metes and bounds or not. In these circumstances, by detailed order dated 05.08.2024, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with consent of parties to examine, first, whether the suit property could legally be partitioned by metes and bounds in consultation with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi; second, if such division was impermissible, to facilitate private sale of the property; and third, failing consensus on private sale, to proceed with sale by public auction at appropriate market valuation. Order dated 05.08.2024 is being reproduced in its entirety and the same reads as under:
4. The Local Commissioner submitted interim reports. A perusal of the Reports of the Local Commissioner indicates that the Local Commissioner made enquiries with the municipal authorities and the Town Planning Department, MCD, which have clarified that sub-division of the Suit Property was not legally permissible, thereby ruling out physical partition altogether. The First Interim Report dated 22.10.2024 recorded that after the MCD clarification, parties were invited to pursue private sale. While the Plaintiff expressed willingness for sale, the Defendant sought to retain his share and proposed bringing a buyer, and both sides initially expressed reservations against public auction. Time was sought to explore private sale 14.52.42 possibilities. However, despite opportunities, no viable consensual private sale materialized. Vide Order dated 06.05.2025, the Court took on record both the First Interim Report and the Second Interim Report dated 24.04.2025, filed by the Local Commissioner and recorded that while the Plaintiff had indicated a prospective buyer at approximately the circle-rate valuation, the Defendant asserted a much higher notional valuation but had no ready purchaser. The Court, therefore, concluded that since partition by metes and bounds was impossible and parties had failed to secure a private sale, sale through public auction had become the only viable mode for working out the final partition. Accordingly, with consent of parties, the Court directed the Local Commissioner to initiate sale of the Suit Property through public auction. Order dated 06.05.2025 is also reproduced in its entirety and the same reads as under:
5. Thereafter, auction proceedings commenced. Defendant has now filed 14.52.42 the present Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking stay of the auction proceedings. It is the contention of the Defendant that the auction, as presently structured, concerns only the “yellow portion” admeasuring 444.[5] sq. yards, whereas in reality that portion forms part of a larger parent plot admeasuring about 1330 sq. yards, and any sale confined only to the 1/3rd portion may create title complications and prejudice both existing and prospective purchasers. It is, therefore, prayed that either the auction be stayed, or, alternatively, sale be directed of the entire 1330 sq. yards plot rather than only the suit property, or the owners of the remaining two-thirds of the entire 1330 sq. yards plot be brought into the proceedings and their shares be included in the sale process.
6. Heard the Defendant-in-person and perused the material on record.
7. The principal relief sought by the Defendant in the present Application is for stay of the auction proceedings already directed by this Court. It is the case of the Defendant that since the Suit Property forms part of a larger plot admeasuring 1330 sq. yards, the auction of the Suit Property alone ought to be interdicted, or alternatively that the entire larger plot should be subjected to sale. This contention is misconceived and cannot be accepted. The present proceedings concern only the Suit Property, namely the 444.[5] sq. yards portion which fell to the share of the parents of the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein under the family settlement of 1976. In the present Suit, a preliminary decree declaring 50% share of each of the parties has already been passed and the same has attained finality. The scope of the present proceedings is confined to working out the final decree in respect of the Suit Property and cannot be expanded into adjudication concerning the remaining portions of the larger parent plot or alleged rights 14.52.42 of third parties.
8. The issue whether the suit property could be partitioned by metes and bounds already stood examined by the Local Commissioner, and on the basis of the report received from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it has been conclusively recorded that sub-division of the Suit Property is impermissible and physical partition cannot be effected and, therefore, the only option is to sell the Suit property which comprises of 444.[5] Sq. Yds. The Reports of the Local Commissioner does not show that MCD has raised any objection regarding sale of the Suit Property or that the sale of the Suit Property is impermissible in law. In light of the above and after taking into account the fact that opportunities for private sale have failed, this Court vide Order dated 06.05.2025 directed sale of the Suit Property through public auction. That order was passed with consent of the parties. The present application, which seeks to reopen the issues already concluded by prior judicial orders, cannot be permitted to obstruct implementation of the final decree process.
9. The apprehension of the Defendant that a purchaser in auction may face disputes from owners of the other portions of the parent plot does not hold water and there is no legal impediment in selling the Suit Property through auction. The other prayer of the Defendant that the entire 1330 sq. yards plot should be sold in these proceedings is equally untenable as the same would travel far beyond the subject matter of the Suit and affect persons who are not parties before this Court.
10. The Defendant has thus failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of stay. The balance of convenience is also against the Defendant, as staying the auction at this stage would defeat and delay execution of the 14.52.42 final decree. No irreparable injury is shown to arise to the Defendant, whose rights in the sale proceeds remain fully protected in accordance with his adjudicated 50% share.
11. In the opinion of this Court, the attempt of the Defendant is only to keep on delaying the sale of the Suit Property in furtherance of his ulterior motives. This Court is of the considered view that the present Application is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, intended merely to obstruct and protract proceedings which have already attained finality on the issues sought to be reagitated. Courts cannot permit litigants to misuse judicial process as a tool for endless obstruction, and must come down with heavy hands to thwart such attempts. The fact that the Defendant appears in person does not evoke any sympathy from this Court. It is not as if the Defendant is an uneducated or indigent litigant unable to comprehend the consequences of his actions. On the contrary, the conduct of the Defendant demonstrates a conscious and deliberate strategy to abuse the process of Court. In these circumstances, the present Application is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the Defendant to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund (AFBCWF) within four weeks from today.
12. The Local Commissioner is directed to proceed further with the auction of the property within a period of three months. CS(OS) 548/2022 & CCP(O) 14/2026, I.A. 14673/2022, I.A. 23124/2025
13. List on 17.08.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J APRIL 23, 2026