The main legal point established in the judgment is that a valid cause of action must be shown in the plaint for a claim to be upheld, and the court must interpret and apply laws as per the prevailing time.

1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 18th January, 2017 in Civil Suit No.8199/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-04, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi] of dismissal of the application of the two petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the suit for partition of immoveable properties filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the two petitioners, respondent No.2, Sub-Registrar of Documents and respondent No.3 Mallika Dang.

2. The petition came up before this Court first on 19th April, 2017 when the counsel for respondents No.1&3 appeared on advance notice; notice to respondent No.2, Sub-Registrar of Documents, being a proforma defendant/respondent was dispensed with. The petition was adjourned to 21st July, 2017.

3. On 21st July, 2017, the adjournment was sought on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners/defendants. On going through the impugned order with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents No.1&3, it was prima facie observed that no error was found therein. Clarifying that the petitioners/defendants having sought adjournment will not be entitled to take adjournments in the suit before the Trial Court, the hearing was adjourned to 22nd September, 2017 and thereafter to 13th November, 2017.

4. On 13th November, 2017, the senior counsel for the petitioners/defendants was heard and on perusal of the plaint and on the senior counsel for the petitioners/defendants citing Surender Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram AIR 2016 Del 120, the prima facie view expressed earlier was dislodged; though adjourning the hearing on that day on the request on behalf of the counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, the personal presence of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, who was disclosed to be a Chartered Accountant, on the next date of hearing was directed.

5. Thereafter the proceedings were adjourned from time to time.

6. The senior counsel for the petitioner/defendants today states that in fact it is the wife of the respondent No.1/plaintiff who is a Chartered Accountant and not the respondent No.1/plaintiff who is present in person in the Court today.

7. The senior counsel for the petitioners/defendants and the counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff have been heard. It is informed that the respondent No.3 Mallika Dang is the daughter of the petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioner No.2.

8. The respondent No.1/plaintiff sued for partition, pleading inter alia as under:-

“1. That the Plaintiff is constrained to institute the instant suit as the Defendant No.1 and 2 are illegally trying to alienate his substantial share in the HUF properties which he is entitled as coparcener.

2. That the Defendant No.1, 2 and 3 are father, brother and sister of the Plaintiff respectively.

3. That Late Sh. Joginder Singh Dang was grandfather of the Plaintiff herein and he was karta of the Hindu Undivided Family and Plaintiff as well as the Defendants were member of the said HUF. The Grandfather of the Plaintiff has purchased all properties (mentioned hereinbelow). That it is also relevant to mention here that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff, Late Sh. Joginder Singh Dang was a very successful businessman, who made his millions in the real estate and transport business. He was the chairman of the green roadways. Late Sh. Joginder Singh died in the year 2013 and he had great love and affection for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff took care of his Grandfather during the days of his illness. The Plaintiff grandmother died on 5th February, 1994.

4. That the plaintiff claims his right qua HUF properties which are the subject property for the present suit are as follows:-

(1) Property bearing no.108, Sainik Farms presently held in the name of Plaintiff and the defendant No.1.

(2) Property bearing no.18/14 Sainik Farms presently held in the name of defendant No.1.

(3) Property bearing no.51 Sainik Farms, Presently held in the joint name of