Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.12.2025
DARSHANA RANI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manu Parashar, Advocate
Through: None
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners have assailed order dated 19.11.2025 of the learned trial court and have sought directions to the trial court to decide their application which is stated to have been filed in terms of order dated 15.10.2025 and permit them to demarcate and separate their one fourth share by metes and bounds only by erecting wall in the middle of the remaining half portion of the suit property. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, I find the petition completely frivolous and not fit for issuance of even notice.
2. For convenience, order dated 15.10.2025 of the learned trial court is extracted below: “15th October, 2025 Present: Sh. Rahul Kapoor, Proxy Counsel for plaintiff. Sh. Manu Parashar, ld. Counsel for D-1. Sh. Anukul Adhana, ld. Counsel for D-3(a, b, c and d). Sh. Sarthak Handa, Ms. Somya Handa, both LRs of Sh. Surinder Pal Handa in person. Sh. Shyam Sunder Handa in person. Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of D-3(a, b, c and d). Same is taken on record. At joint request, list the matter for further proceedings/final decree for 19.11.2025. Parties are at liberty to file proposals to divide the suit property by metes and bounds, positively by NDOH.”
3. The order impugned in the present proceedings is extracted below: “19th October, 2025 Present: Sh. Rahul Kapoor, Proxy Counsel for plaintiff through V.C. Sh. Manu Parashar, ld. Counsel for D-l. D-2 Shyam Sunder Handa in person. Sh. Hemant Kakkar, Proxy Counsel for LR of Surender Handa Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for D-6. Parties seek some more time for amicable settlement. One last and final opportunity is granted to the parties to settle the matter amicably or file proposal to divide the suit property by metes and bounds, in terms of preliminary decree positively by NDOH. List the matter for further proceedings on 24.12.2025. Date is given as per request and convenience of parties.”
4. The very perusal of these two orders shows that there is no infirmity, much less any perversity in the said two orders including the impugned order that would call for an interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both orders are simply procedural orders. There is nothing on record to suggest that the application, if any, filed by the present petitioners would not be considered by the learned trial court.
5. Therefore, the petition and accompanying applications are dismissed.
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 24, 2025