G.S. Sistani, J.

I.A. Nos. 4433/2013 and 12308/2013 (both under S.151 of the Code by defendant no. 2 & defendant no. 1(i) to (iii) respectively)

1. Both these applications have been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (briefly the “Code”) seeking dismissal of the present suit.

2. As there are numerous parties to the present suit, for the ease of reference, I shall refer to the plaintiffs/Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. and its sister concerns as “Vidur”; defendant nos. 1 (i) to (iii), being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna, as “Khanna”; defendant no. 2/Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. as “Tosh”; defendant no. 3(i) and (ii), being the legal heirs of Late Sh. L.K. Kaul, as “Kaul”; and defendant no. 4/Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. as “Bhagwati”.

3. During the pendency of this suit, Khanna and Tosh had preferred applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, being I.A. No. 608/2013 and I.A. No. 2049/2013 respectively, seeking the rejection of the plaint. By an order dated 31.05.2013, the applications were allowed by this Court and the plaint was rejected as having been filed without disclosing any cause of action. The order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the single judge was assailed by the plaintiffs herein before the Division Bench in appeal [RFA (OS) 61/2013].

4. Before the Division Bench, learned senior counsel for Tosh had made a statement that he does not press his application under Order VII Rule 11, but instead he would press I.A. No. 4433/2013 pending before the Single Judge. Similarly, counsel for Khanna had also made a statement that he would not press his application under Order VII Rule 11, but instead he would file a fresh application under Section 151 for the dismissal of the suit. Based upon the statements, the Division Bench set-aside the order dated 31.05.2013 and remanded the matter back for adjudication of the applications under Section 151 of the Code. The order of the Division Bench dated 04.07.2013 reads as under:-

“Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 on instructions from the respondent No.2 submits that he does not press the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC being I.A. No.2049/2013, but instead wishes to press his application under Section 151 CPC being I.A.No.4433/2013 before the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Yakesh Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 (i) to (iii) on instructions submits that he does not press his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC being I.A.No.608/2013, but instead he will be moving an application under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit.

In view of the aforesaid statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly. The judgment and order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Single Judge for adjudication of the applications under Sections 151 CPC in the first instance. It is hoped and expected that the learned Single Judge will make an endeavour to decide the said applications as expeditiously as possible and thereafter decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.”

5. In this backdrop, I.A. No. 4433/2013 filed by Tosh and I.A. No. 12308/2013 filed by Khanna, both for dismissal of the suit have been taken up for hearing.

6. Some basic facts are required to be noticed before the rival submissions of the parties can be noticed and considered.

7. Present suit has been filed seeking declaration, possession, injunction and for enquiry into damages in respect of the property bearing No. 21, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”).

8. The present case has a chequered history and is premised on a sale transaction between Khanna and Vidur in respect of the Su