$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010371112026 + C.R.P. 230/2026, CM APPL. 53455/2026, CM APPL. 53456/2026 CM APPL. 53457/2026 & CM APPL. 53458/2026. SH. JAI PRAKASH GAUTAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Akshit Sawal and Mr. Ayan Sharma, Advs. versus SH. MURLI MANOHAR GAUTAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR. AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. This petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 28th March 2026 passed by the District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 20895/2016, dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1. 2. Suit had been filed by the father of respondent no. 1/Mr. Murli Manohar Gautam for partition, permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking preliminary decree of partition in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff, against the defendants in respect of the two suit properties located at Kamla Nagar, Delhi -110007 and Kucha Natwa, Delhi-110007. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:26:13 3. Written statement was filed back in 2017 by petitioner/defendant no.1, in which, an assertion had been taken that the parties had entered into a family settlement, pursuant to a previous suit filed in 1990 by respondent no. 1/Mr. Murli Manohar Gautam. The matter has been pending before the Trial Court since 2017. Issues have been framed and the trial is underway. At this stage, after 8 years, an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was filed in 2025 asserting the issue of prior settlement. 4. The impugned order has gone through these aspects in detail and noted that various issues would still remain open, considering, it is in dispute whether the family settlement had taken place or not and if the respondent/plaintiff had given up shares and rights in the properties. In respect of this, issue no.1 has already been framed. 5. There was also an assertion by respondent no.1/plaintiff that he had withdrawn the earlier suit with the intervention of relatives and other respectable members of the society and it had been agreed that property shall be partitioned by metes and bounds. However, the partition did not take place. 6. Considering that these questions remained open, the application under Order XII Rule 6 was dismissed by way of the impugned order. It was also noted, that the suit was of 2016 and petitioner/defendant no.1 has been in deep slumber to move the application much later. 7. This aspect was also highlighted in order dated 12th December 2024, when an application was moved by petitioner/defendant no.1 to place a copy of the agreement dated 16th July 1995. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:26:13 8. Even though no limitation applies, the Court does not consider it fit to intercede in the matter, particularly at this stage of the suit. 9. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 12, 2026/ak/sp 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 17/08/2026 at 11:26:13