Ashok Yadav v. Vinod Kumar Gupta & Ors.

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 53 days in re-filing the present Petition.

2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.

3. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 33/2020 & CM APPL. 6282/2020 [Stay]

4. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge-05 (SW), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

5. None appears for the Respondents.

6. The record reflects that by an order dated 17.02.2020, the predecessor Bench of this Court had directed the learned Trial Court to defer the date of hearing to a date after the date fixed by this Court. 6.[1] Although the order of the predecessor Bench was not continued thereafter, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter has not proceeded thereafter before the learned Trial Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes one submission. It is submitted that the Petition is barred by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7.[1] A perusal of the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC dated 14.02.2019 filed by the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court, however reflects that this ground has not been taken by the Petitioner in the said Application. The only ground that is taken by the Petitioner in the Application is set out in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Application which is that the suit has been filed without any cause of action. The relevant extract is set out below:

8. It is the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court that the Petitioner/Defendant before the learned Trial Court had approached the Respondents to sell a portion/area of 150 Sq. yards of his property bearing no. RZ-26-P/66 in Khasra No. 690/308, admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at Indira Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045, [hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”]. The Petitioner/Defendant represented themselves as the rightful owner of the suit property and an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondents on 22.11.2012 for a consideration of Rs.49.[5] lacs. The receipt and other documents of sale including a GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter was executed by the parties on 24.11.2012. 8.[1] Since the possession of the suit property was thereafter not delivered to the Respondents on the pretext that there was an old tenant who required to be evicted from the suit property. The Respondents thereafter undertook investigation and found that the suit property was also subject matter of litigation and that an FIR, is registered against the Petitioner as well, in relation to the suit property.

9. The learned Trial Court examined the Plaint as well as the documents filed along with the Plaint and found that based on the averments made in the Plaint and the documents filed, the Plaint does disclose a cause of action. Thus, the Application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed by the Impugned Order.

10. The examination by this Court shows that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity.

11. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file a fresh application before the learned Trial Court to agitate his contentions.

12. The Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The pending Application also stands closed.

13. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, before the learned Trial Court qua his contentions.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 11, 2025/ ha