Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The background to these applications is that the Plaintiff filed CS (OS) No. 1382 of 2012 in this Court on 11th May 2012 for a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, Mr. Obaid Khan son of late Ajaz Khan and 5 others in respect of the suit property being the front half portion of property No. 49B, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003 (‘suit property’), as shown in colour ‘Red’ in the site

plan produced with the plaint. The further relief sought was for a decree for damages and mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Summons in the suit and the notice in the application were directed to issue by the Court on 14th May 2012. The Defendant was served and entered appearance through counsel on 25th May 2012.

3. The Plaintiff filed IA No. 13479 of 2012 under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’) on the basis of the admission in written statement filed by the Defendant in reply to para 7 of the plaint to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant was in occupation of only the rear half portion of the suit property.

4. The Plaintiff filed IA No. 22618 of 2012 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for deletion of Defendants 2 to 6. In the said application, on 18th December 2012 the Joint Registrar (‘JR’) passed the following order: “IA 22618 of 2012 (filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the Plaintiff for deletion of Defendant Nos. 2 to 6) The Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are not yet served as per the record. None appears for them. By the present application, the Plaintiff makes a vehement plea that the suit property is occupied by Defendant No. 1 only and he is the sole necessary and proper party to the suit. Hence, no relief is sought against Defendant Nos. 2 to 6. In view of the above, the Plaintiff being dominus litis has the choice to add or delete the Defendants. Therefore, the notices on this IA are dispensed. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 against whom no relief is sought by the Plaintiff as submitted by learned counsel, now the Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are directed to be deleted from the array of parties. The Plaintiff is directed to file the amended memo of parties also. Thus, the IA stands disposed of. CS (OS) No. 1382 of 2012 Matter be listed before the Hon’ble Court for further directions on 19th December 2012 (as per the order dated 6th August 2012).”

5. The Defendant filed IA No. 2547 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable and liable to rejected for non-joinder of the necessary and proper parties. It was pointed out that the Plaintiff had abandoned his claim against five of the Defendants 2 to 6 who were the legal representatives of the occupant of a portion of the suit property. By a detailed order dated 15th February 2013 the Court rejected the said plea on the ground that whether or not the Defendants 2 to 6 earlier impleaded and subsequently given up by the Plaintiff were necessary parties could be decided only after the issues were framed. The Defendant then claimed rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Plaintiff is claiming ownership and possession of the said property pursuant to an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the erstwhile owner of the property, Smt. Pusha Gupta, and also that the property in question stands mutated in his favour in the records of New Delhi Municipal Council (‘NDMC’). The Court rejected the said plea on the ground that “whether or not he (Plaintiff) would succeed in getting a decree of possession is a different matter, which shall be decided in accordance with law after the trial.” The Court further held that whether or not the transaction between the Plaintiff and the erstwhile owner was a genuine one or not would also be a matter to be gone into at the stage of trial. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000.

6. I.A. No. 9508 of 2