CS(OS) 618/2022 $~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REVIEW PET. 643/2025 IN + CS(OS) 618/2022 SATYA BHUSHAN JAIN .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vijay Mishra, Adv. versus PUNEET JAIN & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Arjun Anand, Mr. Priyam Wadhwan and Mr. Aryan Pathak, Advs. For D-1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 22.12.2025 REVIEW PET. 643/2025 1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 18th November 2025. 2. The review petitioner seeks review of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the aforesaid order, in terms of which, the defendants no.1 and 2 were directed to execute a sale deed in respect of their 50% share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said order are set out below: “12. Accordingly, it is directed that the defendants no.1 and 2 shall execute a sale deed in respect of their 50% share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and shall cooperate with the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered. 13. Needless to state, all expenses towards execution of the sale deed, including stamp duty, shall be paid by the plaintiff.” 3. Counsel for the review petitioner submits that instead of a ‘sale deed’, the defendant should be directed to execute a ‘release deed’ in favour of the 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 24/12/2025 at 12:22:17 CS(OS) 618/2022 plaintiff. 4. This aspect was never argued on behalf of the plaintiff when the matter was listed before this Court on several dates of hearing, including on 18th November 2025, when the suit was decreed. 5. A preliminary decree in the present suit was passed on 11th March 2024, holding that the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit property bearing No.68, Veer Nagar (Jain Colony), New Delhi-110007. At the request of the plaintiff that the suit property may be sold and the plaintiff and defendant no.3 be given their 50% shares in the sale proceeds, this Court vide order dated 26th November 2024 had appointed a Court Auctioneer. 6. Subsequently, vide order 7th August 2025, the Court ordered inter se bidding between the parties on the premise that each of the plaintiff and defendant no.3, on one hand and the defendants no.1 and 2, on the other hand, have 50% share in the suit property. Since the plaintiff was the successful bidder, the defendants sold their 50% share in the suit property to the plaintiff. 7. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the submission of the review petitioner that the defendants should be directed to execute a ‘release deed’ instead of a ‘sale deed’. Clearly, this review petition has been filed only to save the stamp duty that is payable on a sale deed and which had to be borne by the plaintiff. 8. No grounds for review are made out. 9. The review petition is dismissed. AMIT BANSAL, J DECEMBER 22, 2025/Vivek/- 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 24/12/2025 at 12:22:17