Dinesh Kumar Sharma JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
CM APPL. 29061/2022 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 29059/2022 (condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay for one day in filing the petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 86/2022, CM APPL. 29060/2022 (stay)
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20th February, 2020, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Predominantly on the ground that the certified copy of sale deed dated 28th August, 1968, produced by the learned counsel for the defendant to prove his title, neither bears the signatures of vendor nor of the witnesses.
2. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the suit being filed by the respondent/plaintiff bearing No. CS 341 of 2019 against the petitioners/defendants is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned senior counsel submits that it is an admitted case that the defendants/petitioners are in possession of the suit property bearing House No. 12, Block-D, Satyawati Nagar/Colony, New Delhi-110052.
3. Learned senior counsel has submitted that it is also an admitted case that Sh. Khushi Ram Kain, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Delhi State Harijan Co-operative Association Ltd. The plea of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that subsequently, late Khushi Ram Kain sold this property to Smt. Krishna Devi vide sale deed dated 19th November, 1968. Smt. Krishna Devi then sold this property to the petitioner (Smt. Krishna Wadhera) vide sale deed dated 21st July, 1969.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that since then, the petitioners are in possession of the suit property and have also raised substantial construction.
5. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the civil suit filed by the respondent is actually without any cause of action and is also barred by limitation. It has been submitted that as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is 12 years, whereas in the present case the suit has been filed in the year 2019 i.e. after around 51 years of the execution of the sale deed.
6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the prayer B of the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it has been submitted that the sale deed executed by late Sh. Khushi Ram Kain in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi be declared as null and void whereas Smt. Krishna Devi has not been made a party.
7. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner should not be made to undergo the agony of the Trial on the basis of baseless suit being filed by the respondent/plaintiff. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
8. The civil suit being filed by respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court is for permanent injunction, declaration and possession. The respondents have submitted that they are legal heirs of late Khushi Ram Kain who had bought the suit property vide sale deed dated 28th August, 1968. Sh. Khushi Ram Kain passed away on 25th December, 1969 without disclosing the purchase of suit property to his legal heirs/plaintiffs/respondents. The plea of the plaintiffs/respondents before the learned Trial Court is that on 22nd December, 2018 when they were searching for some missing documents in the suit property, they found the registered sale deed/conveyance deed of the suit property. It has been submitted that since they came to know about the ownership of the suit property only in t........