LPA 599/2026 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04.08.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010351872026 + LPA 599/2026 & CM APPL. 50675/2026 SAMA JAHAN @ SHAMA PARVEEN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aman Usman, Advocate. versus RAZIA BEGUM .....Respondent Through: Mr. Waiz Islam, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 50674/2026 (Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 50676/2026 (Condonation of Delay) 3. This is an Application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in re-filing the present Appeal. 4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 76 days in re-filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The Application stands disposed of. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:06.08.2026 18:35:36 Signature Not Verified LPA 599/2026 LPA 599/2026 6. The present intra court Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in CM APPL. 28390/2025 (“Recall Application”) in W.P.(C) 7611/2022 (“Writ Petition”). By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Recall Application seeking recall of the order dated 19.02.2024 (“Order”), on the ground that the Order was passed on equitable considerations, particularly having regard to the advanced age of the Respondent. 7. The Appellant contends that the Order stood vitiated by fraud, concealment, and suppression of material facts. According to the Appellant, the Respondent had represented before the Court that she had no effective residential accommodation or financial means, while material transactions concerning the Subject Property had not been disclosed. 8. The Respondent had earlier initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the Rules framed thereunder, alleging that the Appellant and her son were occupying portions of property bearing No. A-99/2, Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025, admeasuring approximately 143 sq. yds. (“Subject Property”), and that she had been compelled to reside in an uninhabitable basement. 9. The District Magistrate, by order dated 11.07.2017, directed the Respondent to shift from the basement to the upper ground floor flat and directed the Appellant not to interfere with or object to the Respondent shifting into the upper ground floor flat. However, the Appellate Authority, by order dated 21.05.2018, set aside the said direction, holding that the Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:06.08.2026 18:35:36 Signature Not Verified LPA 599/2026 Respondent could not be compelled to vacate the basement until the construction or repair of the upper ground floor was completed. 10. The Respondent thereafter filed the Writ Petition before this Court challenging the order dated 21.05.2018 and seeking, inter alia, possession and eviction of the occupants from the Subject Property. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the Subject Property and ascertain its condition. 11. The Local Commissioner submitted a report dated 09.02.2023 (“Report”) recording that the basement and upper ground floor were uninhabitable, the Appellant’s son was occupying the first floor, and the Appellant had leased out the fourth-floor flat for a monthly rent of ₹13,500/-. Upon considering the Report, the record, and the Respondent’s advanced age, the learned Single Judge vide the Order declined to grant eviction but directed the Appellant and her son to pay ₹10,000/- each per month as maintenance to the Respondent. 12. The Order was carried in appeal by different parties. LPA 288/2024 filed by the Appellant’s was dismissed by the Division Bench on 09.04.2024, and SLP No. 11120/2024 against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17.05.2024. LPA 338/2024 filed by the Respondent, seeking possession instead of maintenance, was dismissed on 30.04.2024. LPA 966/2024 filed by the Appellant challenging the maintenance direction was dismissed on 26.09.2024. 13. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the Recall Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of the Order on the ground of fraud and material suppression. The Appellant alleged that the Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:06.08.2026 18:35:36 Signature Not Verified LPA 599/2026 Respondent had transferred portions of the Subject Property to her son by way of Gift Deed, General Power of Attorney, and Affidavit dated 13.02.2021, and had also sold four flats to a third party for ₹1.25 crore. 14. In reply, the Respondent denied having sold four flats for ₹1.25 crore and stated that she was an aged woman with no independent source of income and serious ailments, and that only a portion measuring 50 sq. yds. of the Subject Property had been sold through her attorney for ₹12,50,000/- to meet medical and legal expenses. 15. By the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Recall Application, holding that the Order was passed on equitable principles in view of the Respondent’s age and circumstances, and that no interference was warranted. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Recall Application without adjudicating the fundamental plea of fraud and suppression. It was contended that, had the alleged transfers and financial transactions been disclosed, the Court may not have granted the direction for monthly maintenance. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that an order obtained by deliberate suppression of material facts cannot be permitted to stand. 17. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and considered the material placed on record. 18. In our view, an application for recall cannot be converted into a rehearing on merits or used as a means to introduce disputed factual issues Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:06.08.2026 18:35:36 Signature Not Verified LPA 599/2026 after final adjudication. The allegations relating to fraud, property transfers, and receipt of consideration were raised after the disposal of the Writ Petition and involve questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated by way of the Recall Application. 19. The Appellant has already availed the remedy of appeal against the Order, which was dismissed. In such circumstances, the Recall Application could not be maintained as a device to reagitate issues that had attained finality. Insofar as the alleged discovery of new facts is concerned, the Appellant has neither pleaded specific particulars of the alleged fraud committed by the Respondent nor demonstrated that, despite due diligence, such facts could not have been discovered earlier. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, recourse to the Recall Application for reopening concluded issues was misconceived. 20. Consequently, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the equitable directions issued in favour of the Respondent, who is a senior citizen aged about 90 years. 21. In view of the foregoing, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order warranting interference. The present Appeal is dismissed. Pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. TEJAS KARIA, J DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ AUGUST 4, 2026 Sz Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:06.08.2026 18:35:36