The main legal point established is that the scope of a suit for eviction/possession cannot be expanded to include a third party claiming independent interest in the property, as it would impermissibly change the nature of the suit.

Hima Kohli, J.

The present Chamber Appeal has been filed by Ms. Sonia Grover(daughter of the defendants No.1 and 2) against the order dated 02.09.2014, passed by the Joint Registrar, whereby the impleadment application filed by her was dismissed (I.A. 8628/2014).

2. A brief background of the case is necessary.

3. The plaintiff has instituted the accompanying suit for possession and injunction against the defendants (parents of the applicant) in respect of the ground floor of premises No.A-139, Kalkaji Extension, Delhi. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants No.1 and 2 had represented themselves to be the co-owners of the suit premises. As per the averments made in the plaint, the parties had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 01.11.2009, in respect of the suit premises, where under the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the same for a sale consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and on the said date, after adjusting the earnest money of Rs. 12,50,000/- paid by the plaintiff, the balance sum of Rs. 10 lacs was also received by the defendants.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of executing the sale deed, though it was recorded in the document that actual physical possession of the suit premises had been handed over by the vendors to the vendee, but the defendants had expressed some difficulty in handing over possession on account of the applicant's final school examinations and they had promised the plaintiff that they would hand over vacant peaceful possession to her immediately after their daughter's examinations were over. However, when the defendants continued occupying the suit premises and failed to hand over peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff, she was compelled to institute the accompanying suit in December, 2010.

5. Summons were issued in the suit on 10.12.2010 and vide order dated 18.02.2011, the defendants were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the title and possession of the suit premises. Though the defendants were served with the summons in the suit, they did not enter appearance and as a result, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.5.2011. After the aforesaid order was passed, the plaintiff filed her affidavit by way of evidence. The ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 11.01.2013. On the said date, the defendant No.1 turned up and he was granted permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness but he did not conduct any cross-examination. With these orders, the suit was directed to be placed before the Court on 20.3.2013.

6. In the meantime, on 21.01.2013, the defendants filed applications under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying inter alia for setting aside the ex parte order dated 20.05.2011. Notice was issued on the said applications and the same were finally allowed vide order dated 20.03.2013. On the said date, last opportunity was granted to the defendants to file their written statement on or before 02.04.2013 and the case was directed to be placed before the Joint Registrar for admission and denial of documents. However, the defendants failed to avail of the liberty granted to them to file their written statement. As a result, on 10.09.2013, the Joint Registrar closed their right to file the written statement. On 13.01.2014, permission was granted to the defendants to conduct admission and denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff but counsel for the defendants refused to do so. As a result, the documents filed by the plaintiff were deemed to be admitted by the defendants and the case was directed to be placed before the Court for further proceedings.

7. On 31.03.2014, a Chamber Appeal, registered as O.A. 51/2014 was filed by the defendants against the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Joint Registrar, closing their right to file the written statement. Notice was issued on the sai