Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Jagdeep Kishore and Ms. Arpan Wadhawan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
1. The present appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996, has been instituted on behalf of Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, the appellant herein, praying as follows:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside that part of the order which authorises the Local Commissioner to take into consideration third party rights. This Hon'ble court may pass such other or further orders as it may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The present appeal essentially and substantially assails the direction (b), issued to the Local Commissioner, appointed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.07.2023 in CS(OS) 383/2020, titled „Jagdeep Kishore vs. Mukul Kishore & Ors.’. For the sake of completeness, the above said direction (b) is extracted herein below:- “b. The Local Commissioner will, within six weeks, file a report along with a rough site plan of the suit property suggesting as to whether the suit property can be divided by metes and bounds, and if not, the manner in which the same can be partitioned. While furnishing her report, the learned Local Commissioner will also take into account the rights of the defendant no. 3 as also Mrs. Renu Kishore, the wife of the plaintiff to continue to reside in the suit property.”
3. In order to effectively adjudicate the apprehension, articulated on behalf of the appellant, it would be necessary to elaborate on the backdrop, in which the grievance has been expressed.
4. In the instant suit for partition, vide order dated 30.05.2023, the learned Single Judge had issued directions, in paragraph 10 thereof. For the sake of completeness, the said paragraph is extracted herein below:-
5. In the above factual context; Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would urge that the direction to the Local Commissioner, as extracted hereinabove, would have the effect of giving Mrs. Renu Kishore, the appellant’s estranged wife, a right in the property to be partitioned.
6. In this behalf, we observe that the directions contained in the order dated 30.05.2023, are limited to an undertaking furnished by the appellant, not to dispossess his estranged wife from the suit property, pursuant to orders passed in the proceedings initiated by the latter, against the former, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that are still pending adjudication.
7. A fortiori the right of the estranged wife, is limited to continue to reside in the property and does not transcend beyond that specific relief for the purpose of partition. Even otherwise, if as apprehended by the appellant, the Local Commissioner appointed to suggest whether the partition of the subject property can be done, by metes and bounds, proceeds to determine any rights in law qua the estranged wife; he would be at liberty to file objections there against, in accordance with law, before the learned Single Judge.
8. With the above clarification, the present appeal is disposed of.
9. A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)