Manmohan Singh, J.:--

1. By way of filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge-03 (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 70/2010.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with the averments that respondents/defendants No. 3 & 4 are the natural parents of the petitioner while respondents/defendants No. 1 & 2 are her adopted parents. Respondents No. 3 & 4 are legally married and out of the wedlock, the petitioner was born on 3rd April, 1986 at New Delhi. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are the relatives of respondents No. 3 & 4 who had three sons but no daughter and therefore, were desirous of adopting a daughter and hence, adopted the petitioner on 2nd July, 1998. An adoption deed was also executed on the same day.

3. It was further stated that respondents No. 1 & 2 were settled in Canada prior to the adoption and, therefore, they persuaded the respondents No. 3 & 4 to give the petitioner in adoption as they would take the petitioner to Canada. At the time of alleged adoption, no ceremony of giving or taking in adoption was performed and the petitioner was taken into custody by the respondents No. 1 & 2. After the adoption of the petitioner, her parents’ names were also changed and the names of respondents No. 1 & 2 were substituted. At the relevant time, the petitioner was studying in 9th Class in Guru Harkishan Public School, situated at Hemkunt Colony, Nehru Place, New Delhi and their names still continue to be mentioned as the name of the parents of the petitioner in all records. However, the petitioner called respondents No. 1 & 2 telephonically and even sent a number of letters to them but they did not take her with them.

4. It was also submitted before the learned trial Court that respondents No. 1 & 2 came to India and started living at their residence at Govind Puri Extension from 20th March, 2008 onwards, but did not accede to the request of the petitioner to stay with them. Now, the petitioner is also not desirous to live with respondents No. 1 & 2 and wants to go back to her natural parents, i.e. respondents No. 3 & 4 who are also not desirous to keep the petitioner with them and hence, the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the adoption deed was null and void and in all the educational certificates, the name of the natural parents of the petitioner be recorded instead of the names of respondents No. 1 & 2.

5. After notice, respondents appeared before the learned Trial Court and a joint written statement was filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 through their attorney and also a joint written statement was filed by respondents No. 3 & 4. However, all the respondents did not contest the petition, rather admitted the version of the petitioner and, therefore, the joint statement of respondents No. 3 & 4 was recorded by the learned Trial Court on 13th October, 2009 wherein they admitted that they were the biological parents of the petitioner and had no objection if the relief sought by the petitioner was allowed. The statement of Sh.Jasbir Singh, the Special attorney of respondents No. 1 & 2 was also recorded on the same day who stated that he had the instructions to state on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 that they had no objection if the suit filed by the petitioner would be decreed.

6. By order dated 9th December, 2009, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner being not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal being RCA No. 70/2010 which was filed on 1st October, 2010. Hence, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, vide order dated 3rd August, 2012. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

7. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document