Partition by public auction must proceed where physical division is legally impermissible and private sale efforts fail.

The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of a property admeasuring 444.5 sq. yards in Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi, which was originally part of a larger 1333.50 sq. yard plot.

Following a preliminary decree on May 11, 2023, declaring both brothers (the parties) to have a 50% undivided share, the Court sought to determine the modality of final partition.

A Local Commissioner (LC) was appointed and, after consultation with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), reported that physical partition by metes and bounds was legally impermissible.

Since parties failed to agree on a private sale, the Court, with consent, ordered a public auction on May 6, 2025.

The Defendant subsequently filed I.A. 28577/2025 seeking to stay the auction, arguing that selling only the 444.5 sq. yard portion without the rest of the original 1330 sq. yard parent plot would complicate title and prejudice purchasers.

1. Whether the auction of the suit property should be stayed on the grounds that it forms part of a larger parent plot and might cause title complications.

2. Whether the court can direct the sale of the entire 1330 sq. yard plot, including shares of third parties, within the current suit.

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the grant of temporary injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The Court further relied on the principles of finality of judicial orders and the scope of partition suits, holding that a final decree process cannot be expanded to adjudicate rights of third parties not before the court or to reopen issues previously settled by consent orders.

The Court reasoned that the Defendant’s application was a "gross abuse of the process of law" intended to obstruct a final decree that had already attained finality.

The court noted that the 1976 family settlement had already legally separated the 444.5 sq. yard "suit property" from the larger parent plot; therefore, the auction of this specific portion was legally sound and did not require the participation of owners of the remaining 2/3rd of the parent plot.

The Court found no evidence from the MCD suggesting that selling the suit property as a standalone unit was impermissible.

Since the order for auction was passed with the Defendant's consent on May 6, 2025, he could not unilaterally seek a stay without a valid legal impediment.

The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to satisfy the tripartite test for an injunction, as his financial interest (50% share) remained protected in the sale proceeds.

The Court directed the Local Commissioner to proceed with the public auction within three months and imposed costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund; the suit was listed for further proceedings on August 17, 2026.