Sh. Subhash Chandra Jarodia vs Sh. Vijayinder Kumar & Ors on 30 July, 2026

August 5, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Sh. Subhash Chandra Jarodia vs Sh. Vijayinder Kumar & Ors on 30 July, 2026

1. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC“) has been filed on behalf of
the Plaintiff, seeking amendment of the Plaint and for taking the amended
Plaint on record.

SPONSORED

2. According to the plaint, the facts leading to the filing of the present
suit are as follows:

a. It is stated that Late Sh. Chander Bhan, i.e. the father of the
Plaintiff and the Defendants, purchased the suit property
bearing no. M-111, Saket, New Delhi-110017 in the late 1970s,
through a General Power of Attorney. It is stated that although

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 1 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
the property stood in the name of late Sh. Chander Bhan, it was
acquired and constructed with the financial assistance of the
Plaintiff, his wife and the other defendants, who were then
living together as a Joint Hindu Family. It is alleged that late
Sh. Chander Bhan, being employed as a clerk with a modest
salary, did not possess the financial means to independently
purchase the land and construct the building.
b. It is further stated that, in his old age, late Sh. Chander Bhan
suffered from several ailments, remained bedridden for the last
several years of his life and became completely dependent upon
his children for his daily needs. It is stated that during
January/February 2021, Defendant No.1 took him from the
family home at Saket to his residence in Dwarka on the pretext
of providing better medical treatment. It is stated that Defendant
No.1 thereafter isolated late Sh. Chander Bhan from the other
siblings and, by taking advantage of his physical condition and
dependence, compelled him to execute a Gift Deed in respect of
the suit property in favour of Defendant No.1 through coercion
and undue influence.

c. The plaintiff alleges that the Gift Deed suffers from several
legal infirmities, including execution under coercion and undue
influence, insufficient payment of stamp duty, presence of
consideration despite being styled as a gift, absence of
independent witnesses, and non-compliance with the provisions
of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
On these grounds, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Gift

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 2 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
Deed is null and void.

d. It is further stated that while obtaining a copy of the written
statement filed by Defendant No.1 in an earlier partition suit,
being CS(OS) No.148/2023, instituted by Defendant No.4, the
plaintiff came to know for the first time that Defendant No.1
was also relying upon a registered Will dated 26.07.2017,
which was executed by late Sh. Chander Bhan in favour of the
Defendant No.1 herein. Plaintiff claims that none of the other
legal heirs of late Sh. Chander Bhan had any knowledge of the
said Will. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the said Will was
executed under suspicious circumstances.
e. It is stated that the plaintiff attempted to amicably resolve the
dispute and partition the suit property amongst all the legal
heirs of late Sh. Chander Bhan. However, as no settlement
could be reached, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking
declaration of the Gift Deed and the Will as being null and
void, partition and possession of the suit property, and a
permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from creating
third-party rights in the property.

3. Summons in the present Suit were issued on 28.07.2023.

4. During the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff has filed the present
application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking amendment of the
plaint by which the plaintiff seeks to incorporate additional consequential
reliefs of declaration of co-ownership, partition and possession in the present
suit, amend the title of the suit accordingly, and make consequential
amendments in the valuation paragraph and court fees.

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 3 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20

5. By way of the present Application, the Plaintiff seeks incorporation of
the following amendments in the plaint:

I. Proposed insertion of clauses [bb], [bc], [bd] & [be]
in the prayer clause

“bb) Pass a preliminary decree of Partition in favour
of the Plaintiff/Sh. Subhash Chandra Jarodia, thereby
determining the share of the Plaintiff to be 1/5th owner
in the ‘Suit-Property’ bearing No. M-111, Saket, New
Delhi-110017; and/or;

bc) Appoint a commissioner to inspect the ‘Suit-

Property’ bearing No. M-111, Saket, New Delhi-
110017 with directions to explore the mode, manner
and method of partitioning the ‘Suit-Property’; and/or;

bd) Pass a final decree of Partition of the ‘Suit-
Property’ bearing No. M-111, Saket, New Delhi-
110017 by metes and bounds; and/or;

be) Pass Directions to sell the ‘Suit-Property’ in case
severance is not possible by metes and bounds and to
give 1/5th share of the total sale consideration to the
Plaintiff; and/or;”

II. Amendment of Paragraph 77

Original Para:

“77. That the plaintiff along with other defendants are
in actual as well as constructive possession of the suit
property.”

Amended Para:

“77. That the plaintiff is in constructive possession of
the ‘Suit-Property’.”

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 4 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

“bf) Pass a decree of possession, putting the Plaintiff
in separate and independent possession of his 1/5th
share in the ‘Suit-Property’ bearing No. M-111, Saket,
New Delhi-110017; and/or;”

IV. Proposed insertion of clause [ba] in the prayer
clause

“ba) Pass a decree declaring the plaintiff/Sh. Subhash
Chandra Jarodia as co-owner of the ‘Suit-Property’
bearing No. M-111, Saket, New Delhi-110017, being
Joint Family Property; and/or;”

V. Amendment of the title of the suit

Original Title:

“SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION”

Proposed Amended Title:

“SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION,
POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION”.

VI. Amendment of Paragraph 86 (Valuation and
Court Fee)

The plaintiff seeks substitution of Paragraph 86 by
incorporating valuation of the newly added reliefs of
partition, possession and declaration of co-ownership
in the manner stated as follows:

“(i) For the relief of seeking declaration of the

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 5 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
registered ‘Gift Deed’ as null and void (clause [a] of
prayer), and the consequential reliefs of seeking
partition (clause [bb], [bc], [bd] & [be] of prayer) and
possession (clause [bf] of prayer), the suit has been
valued at Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rs. three crores only) and
an ad-valorem Court Fee of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
thousand only) in respect of 1/5th share of the Plaintiff
in the ‘Suit-Property’ has been affixed.

(ii) For the relief of seeking declaration of the
registered ‘Will’ as null and void (clause [b] of prayer),
the suit has been valued at Rs. 200/- (Rs. two hundred
only) and an ad-valorem Court Fee of Rs. 20/- (Rupees
twenty only) has been affixed.

(iii) For the relief of seeking declaration of the Plaintiff
as a Co-owner of the ‘Suit-Property’, being a joint-
family property (clause [ba] of prayer), the suit has
been valued at Rs. 200/- (Rs. two hundred only) and an
ad-valorem Court Fee of Rs. 20/- (Rupees twenty only)
has been affixed.

(iv) For the relief of permanent injunction (clause [c]
of prayer), the valuation for the suit is fixed at Rs.
130/- (Rupees one hundred thirty only) and a court fee
of Rs. 13/- (Rupees thirteen only) has been affixed.

That a total Court-Fee of Rs. 60,053/- (Rupees Sixty
thousand fifty-three only) has been affixed.”

6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.4 had earlier filed a
separate suit for partition in respect of the same suit property, which came to
be rejected by this Court on 05.11.2024. It is contended that, in order to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to secure complete adjudication of the
disputes between the parties, the plaintiff seeks to incorporate the
consequential reliefs of partition in the present suit.

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 6 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20

7. It is further submitted that, owing to the changed circumstances, the
plaintiff seeks the consequential relief of possession and, therefore, proposes
to amend the pleadings to state that he is in constructive possession of the
suit property and seeks separate possession of his 1/5th share in the Suit
Property. The plaintiff also seeks a declaration that he is a co-owner of the
suit property, being Joint Family Property, and consequential amendments to
the title of the suit, valuation clause and court fee.

8. Plaintiff contends that the proposed amendments are bona fide,
necessary for complete adjudication of the disputes, intended to avoid
multiplicity of litigation, and do not alter the nature of the suit nor will
prejudice the defendants as the trial has not commenced, and that refusal of
the amendments would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

9. Reply to the Application has been filed by Defendant No.1, wherein it
is stated that the present application is mala fide, frivolous and has been
filed only to delay the trial, improve the plaintiff’s weak case and harass
Defendant No.1.

10. It is contended that the present application suffers from unexplained
delay. It is stated that the plaintiff was aware of the Gift Deed and the Will
even before filing the present suit, yet chose to file only a suit for
declaration. It is stated that the relief of partition has now been sought only
after dismissal of the connected partition suit and is, therefore, an
afterthought.

11. It is further contended that the proposed amendments change the
nature and scope of the suit. It is stated that the original suit challenged the
Gift Deed and the Will, whereas the amendments seek declaration of co-
ownership, partition and possession, which cannot be permitted by way of

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 7 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

12. It is further stated that the plaintiff has surreptitiously altered the
valuation of the suit property and seeks to cure the deficiency in court fees
through the present amendment, which amounts to an abuse of the process
of law and therefore deserve to be rejected..

13. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.

14. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17
of CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled
law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing amendment of
pleadings, unless the same is barred by limitation. The Apex Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022)
16 SCC 1, after analysing several case laws, has summarised the law
regarding amendment of pleadings as under:

“71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the
other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear
admission made by the party which confers a right

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 8 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred
claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a
valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to
be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is
sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the
claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor
for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or

71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of
pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical
approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal
especially where the opposite party can be
compensated by costs.

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to
pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in
rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.

71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce
an additional or a new approach without introducing a
time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to
be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 9 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of
delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be
allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately
for decision.

71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the
suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely
new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the
amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in
the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already
pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.

71.11. Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be
liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in
mind the fact that the opposite party would have a
chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such,
where the amendment does not result in irreparable
prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite
party of an advantage which it had secured as a result
of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the
amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where
the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively
adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between
the parties, the amendment should be allowed.
(See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay
Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 1897] .)”

15. In addition, the Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad &
Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 10 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
“33. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the
courts should be liberal in allowing applications for
leave to amend pleadings but it is also well settled that
the courts must bear in mind the statutory limitations
brought about by reason of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Acts; the proviso appended to
Order VI Rule 17 being one of them. In North Eastern
Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the law has been laid
down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p.

517, para 16).

“16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
question of granting or disallowing amendments under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time)
are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6
Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at
any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda
Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363]
which still holds the field, it was held that all
amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two
conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other
side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between
the parties. Amendments should be refused only where
the other party cannot be placed in the same position
as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the
amendment would cause him an injury which could not
be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan
Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC
166].)”

34. In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha
reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations
were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the
same, this Court in para 9 held as under:

“9. By reason of the Code of Civil Procedure

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 11 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
(Amendment) Act, 1976, measures have been taken for
early disposal of the suits. In furtherance of the
aforementioned parliamentary object, further
amendments were carried out in the years 1999 and
2002. With a view to put an end to the practice of filing
applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a
proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as
under:

“17. Amendment of pleadings.–The court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made
as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
real questions in controversy between the parties :
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence,
the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.””

35. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to
the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd.
v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967
SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:–

“4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar
Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796]
held:

“The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not
allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new
cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or
cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.] 19
Q.B. 394 : 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well
recognised that where the amendment does not
constitute the addition of a new cause of action or

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 12 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts, the
amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the
statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir
Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J.
Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR
1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438]

The principal reasons that have led to the rule last
mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules
of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and
not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith
[[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and
secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on
the statute of limitation when what is sought to be
brought in by the amendment can be said in substance
to be already in the pleading sought to be amended
(Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant
[ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved
in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).

The expression ’cause of action’ in the present context
does not mean ‘every fact which it is material to be
proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed’ as was said in
Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P. 107 : 42 LJCP 98 : 28 LT
32] in a different context, for if it were so, no material
fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no
one would want to change or add an immaterial
allegation by amendment. That expression for the
present purpose only means, a new claim made on a
new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was
taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd.
[[1962] 2 All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the
only possible view to take. Any other view would make
the rule futile. The words ‘new case’ have been
understood to mean ‘new set of ideas’ : Dornan v. J.W.
Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)] This

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 13 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No
amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of
ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any
party by lapse of time.”

Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC
393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22)

“The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly
wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised
in the interest of justice, the law of limitation
notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching
discretionary powers is governed by judicial
considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought
to be the care and circumspection on the part of the
court.”

“4. It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main
rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of
pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving
of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to
meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are
intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for
defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is
inefficient in setting out its case initially the
shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by
appropriate steps taken by a party which must no
doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense
caused to the other side from its omissions. The error
is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial
steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.”……”

*****

37. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to
amend the plaint, written statement or file an
additional written statement. It is, however, subject to
an exception that by the proposed amendment, an

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 14 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20
opposite party should not be subject to injustice and
that any admission made in favour of the other party
is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings
should be allowed liberally which are necessary for
determination of the real controversies in the suit
provided that the proposed amendment does not alter
or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of
which the original lis was raised or defence taken.

38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in
negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually
destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed
to be incorporated by means of amendment to the
pleadings.” (emphasis supplied)

16. It is, therefore, settled that amendments which are necessary for
determining the real controversy between the parties are ordinarily to be
allowed, provided that no irretrievable prejudice is caused to the opposite
side. At the stage of deciding an application for amendment, the Court is not
expected to conduct a mini trial on the merits of the rival pleas.

17. In the present case, the present application has been filed at a stage
when the trial has not yet commenced. The proposed amendments arise out
of the same subject matter and the same suit property. The plaintiff seeks to
add the consequential reliefs of declaration of co-ownership, partition and
possession on the basis of the pleadings already on record.

18. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that allowing the amendments
would enable the Court to decide all the disputes between the parties in one
proceeding and would avoid multiplicity of litigation. The objections raised
by Defendant No.1 regarding the merits of the plaintiff claim are matters to
be considered at the stage of trial and do not constitute a ground to refuse the
amendment at this stage.

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 15 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20

19. In the opinion of this Court, the proposed amendments do not
introduce a new or inconsistent cause of action but are consequential to the
existing pleadings. Any prejudice likely to be caused to the defendants can
be compensated by granting them liberty to file an amended written
statement(s).

20. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed.

21. The Defendants are at liberty to file Written Statement(s) to the
amended portion of the Plaint within the time prescribed under the Delhi
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

22. Since the plaintiff has enhanced the valuation of the suit and has
sought additional reliefs, the plaintiff is directed to file the requisite
amended valuation and pay the appropriate additional court fee, if any,
within four weeks. Upon the same being filed, the amended plaint be taken
on record.

23. The Application is disposed of.

I.A. 15199/2026

24. This Application under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 CPC has been filed
on behalf of the Plaintiff for production of certain documents.

25. Plaintiff, who appears in person, seeks permission to withdraw the
present Application with liberty to raise the grounds which have been raised
in the present Application at a later point of time.

26. Leave and liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

27. The Application is disposed of as withdrawn.

I.A. 7587/2025

28. This Application under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC has been filed on
behalf of the Plaintiff for impounding the Gift Deed dated 06.09.2021 on the

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 16 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

29. Plaintiff, who appears in person, seeks some time to file additional
documents to show that the Gift Deed is under-valued and, therefore, is
liable to be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

30. List on 23.11.2026.

I.A. 20053/2026

31. List on 23.11.2026.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 30, 2026
Rahul

CS(OS) 441/2023 Page 17 of 17
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 20:34:20

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Sh. Subhash Chandra Jarodia vs Sh. Vijayinder Kumar & Ors on 30 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders