NRIPENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. S L AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE these applications, defendant No.1 is seeking review of the order dated 23.02.2011 whereby defendant No.1 was allowed to continue in possession of the suit property bearing No.61/30, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh (towards house No.61/29, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh), New Delhi, subject to his giving undertaking to the Court that in the event of the Court ultimately deciding that his possession to the exclusion of other co-owners of the property was not lawful, he would pay 5/6 of the current market rent of the aforesaid premises to the other co-owners of the property, he will maintain status quo with respect to the aforesaid possession, will not part with its possession in favour of any other person, will not create any third party interest therein and will not carry out any addition, alteration, renovation or any repair whatsoever therein without prior permission of the Court. He was also required to ensure that the above-referred portion was properly maintained and does not get damaged in any manner. The undertaking was directed to be filed within one week.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant states that only the first and second floor of property No. 61/30, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh (towards house No.61/29, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh), New Delhi, is the subject matter of this suit and, therefore, the undertaking should be confined to only those two floors of the property and should not cover the ground floor which is the exclusive property of defendant No.1. A bare perusal of the order would clearly show that the undertaking sought from defendant No.1 is confined to property which is subject matter of the suit. It is, in any case, clarified that the undertaking to be furnished by defendant No.1 in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.02.2011 would be confined to the first and second floor of property No.61/30, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh (towards house No.61/29, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh), New Delhi.

(3.) SINCE a preliminary decree for partition has already been passed against defendant No.1, there is no occasion for him to file a written statement at this stage. On passing of preliminary decree, the Court needs only to ascertain whether the property is capable of partition by metes and bounds or not and in case the property is capable of partition by metes and bounds, a final decree of partition is to be passed, thereby partitioning the properties by metes and bounds. In case the property is incapable of metes and bounds, the Court is to pass an appropriate order with respect to its sale, on the request of one or more of its co- owners.