Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 02nd December, 2024
MEENA JAIN AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Archit Singhal & Ms. Ritu Jain, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu & Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, Advocates for R-3/DDA.
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel GNCTD, Ms. Purnima Jain
& Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Advocates for R-4/Sub Registrar.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants against the Order dated 20.08.2024 vide which the Application under Section 10 of CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants seeking stay of the Suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs, has been dismissed.
2. It is submitted that the Petitioners/Defendants had filed Suit bearing CS DJ No. 840/2022 against the Defendants i.e., The Deputy Director, Land Sales Branch, Rohini (Defendant No. 1), Sub-Registrar-VII, INA Vikas Sadan and Sub-Registrar-VI, SDM Kanjhawala (Defendant No. 3) for Declaration, Temporary and Permanent Injunction in respect of Property bearing Plot No. 63, Pocket 17, Sector 24, Rohini, measuring 60 sq. meters in Rohini Residential Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”) and also the Sale Deed dated 02.09.2021 to be valid. An interim ex parte stay on the Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiff was granted vide Order dated 23.12.2022.
3. Thereafter, the Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed the present Suit bearing No. 780/2023 against the Petitioners/Defendants herein for Permanent Injunction, Declaration, Mandatory Injunction and for the Recovery of Damages and Mesne Profits and Possession in respect of the subject property seeking a declaration of ownership in respect of the subject property, on the basis of Allotment Letter dated 12.11.1991, Possession Letter dated 23.11.1999, Receipt/Challan dated 19.12.1991, Conveyance Deed dated 23.07.2021 issued by the DDA/Defendant No. 5 and the Sale Deed dated 26.08.2022..
4. It is further asserted that the title documents allegedly executed by Om Prakash Kaviraj in favour of Naresh Kumar i.e., the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt, Possession Letter and Affidavit all dated 08.10.1996 and the consequent Sale Deed dated 02.09.2021 executed in favour of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as null and void.
5. The Application under Section 10 of CPC, 1908 was filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants alleging that they have already filed a Suit for Declaration in respect of the same subject property. The subsequent Suit filed on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs also pertains to the same subject property and the same is liable to be stayed.
6. The learned District Judge vide Order dated 20.08.2024 dismissed the Application under Section 10 of CPC, 1908 of the Petitioners/Defendants seeking stay of the proceedings of the Civil Suit bearing CS DJ 780/2023.
7. Aggrieved by the Order dated 20.08.2024, the present Revision Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants.
8. Submissions heard and the record perused.
9. From the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants, it is evident that the Petitioners/Defendants are claiming to have acquired ownership right on the basis of the Sale Deed 02.09.2021, while the claim raised by the Respondents/Plaintiff in the Civil Suit bearing No.
CS DJ 780/2023 (suit under consideration) is claiming ownership on the basis of Sale Deed dated 26.08.2022 and Allotment Letter dated 12.11.1991, Possession Letter dated 23.11.1999, Receipt/Challan dated 19.12.1991, Conveyance Deed dated 23.07.2021 in respect of the subject property issued by the DDA/Defendant No. 5 and the title documents allegedly executed by Om Prakash Kaviraj in favour of Naresh Kumar i.e., the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt, Possession Letter and Affidavit all dated 08.10.1996.
10. It is quite evident that both the Petitioners/Defendants as well as the Respondents/Plaintiffs have claimed their title in the subject property on different set of documents which are required to be proved in accordance with law. Merely because the subject property happens to be the same, it cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for staying the proceedings of the subsequent Suit bearing No.
CS DJ 780/2023 of the Respondents/Plaintiffs which is more in the nature of a Counter Claim. At best, the parties may request the learned Trial Court to try both the Suits together.
11. The learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the Application under Section 10 of CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the Petitioners/defendants.
12. In view of above, there is no merit in the present Revision Petition which is hereby dismissed along with pending Applications.
JUDGE DECEMBER 2, 2024 S.Sharma