Ashutosh Kumar, J.

CM Appln. 30880 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 380 of 2016; CM Appln. 31675 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 390 of 2016; & CM Appln. 31672 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 389 of 2016

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

CM Appln. 30882 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 380 of 2016; CM Appln. 31677 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 390 of 2016; & CM Appln. 31674 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 389 of 2016

1. The present applications are for condonation of delay in filing the review petitions.

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the review petitions is condoned.

3. The applications stand disposed of.

CM Appln. 30881 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 380 of 2016 CM Appln. 31676 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 390 of 2016; & CM Appln. 31673 of 2016 in Rev. Pet. 389 of 2016

1. The present application are for condonation of delay in re-filing the review petitions.

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the review petitions is condoned.

3. The applications stand disposed of.

Review Petition 380, 390 & 389 of 2016

1. Heard Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The revisionist/petitioner seeks review of the composite judgment dated 23.03.2016 passed in RSA Nos. 255, 256 & 259 of 2015 whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit of the revisionist/petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, has been upheld and affirmed.

3. The petitioner is the daughter of one late Tek Chand Mann who died intestate on 13.10.2002. The consistent case of the revisionist/petitioner has been that behind her back and without informing her, the property which was left behind by her late father was wrongly appropriated by respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 who are her real brothers. It was only in the year 2009, while applying for a loan that the revisionist/petitioner could learn about the property in question having been mutated on 26.05.2004 after the agricultural land was transferred by sale deed in favour of the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 in the year 2000. The subject land was transferred to the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 in accordance with Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act which provides for the general order of succession in case of the death of a male Bhumidar or Asami.

4. The present review petition has been premised on the ground that the lands falling in extended Abadi or Lal Dora would not be governed by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and therefore the suit could not have been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 as well as that the issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, should have been addressed by the Second Appellate Court.

5. In support of this contention, Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to two judgments wherein, as argued by Mr. Singh, it has been held that the lands falling in extended Abadi or a non-agricultural land would not be governed by the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

6. The relevant portions of the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the RFA (OS) No.59/2009 are as hereunder:-

“10. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the proposition that pertaining to agricultural lands governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, a suit for partition would lie before the Revenue Assistant and no a Civil Court.

11. The learned Single Judge has held that lands which were not agricultural in nature and buildings on said lands would be liable to be partitioned at a Civil Court, but has restricted the same to only one property i.e. property listed at Item No.6 as per Annexure-A.

12. Suffice would it be to state that there is no clarity with respect to properties listed at serials No. 5, 7, 8 and 9, on the subject whether said plots were within the abadi or the extended abadi. We clarify, as and