PARESH DANDONA Vs. SUKRUTI DUGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') read with Sec. 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenging the impugned judgment dtd. 9/1/2023, passed in CS (OS) No. 649/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the I.A. No. 8363/2020, filed by the Appellant herein under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC seeking vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim order dtd. 21/12/2018.

(2.) The Appellant herein is Defendant No.3, the Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff, the Respondent No.2 is the Defendant No.1 and Respondent No.3 is Defendant No.2, in the suit proceedings. The underlying civil suit has been filed seeking partition of the immoveable properties and other ancillary reliefs. Submissions of the counsels for the parties

(3.) Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant No. 3 stated that the Appellant and Respondent No. 2/Defendant No.1 in the present appeal are the son and daughter respectively, of late Mr. S.N. Dandona[1] and late Mrs. Shyam Kumari Dandona[2] ('parents'). He stated that the Appellant's parents jointly owned the entire property bearing no. E-25, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi ('Vasant Vihar property'); whereas, the property bearing no. 275, Lower Ground Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi ('Kailash Hills property'), was owned exclusively by the Appellant's father (collectively referred to as 'subject properties'). He stated that after the demise of the parents, the Appellant filed a suit for partition in the year 2010, being CS (OS) No. 1175/2010, before this Court, qua the subject properties.