1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is preferred against the judgment and decree [dated 17th January, 2015 in RCA No.82/2013 (Unique ID No.02402C0163782012) of the Court of Additional District Judge, Shahdara] in First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree [dated 2nd May, 2012 in Civil Suit No.860/2006 (Unique Case ID No.02402C0000431988) of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, North East)] in a suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondent/defendant.

2. The Regular Second Appeal came up first before this Court on 18th September, 2015, when without indicating the substantial question of law if any arising for consideration, notice thereof was ordered to be issued for 2nd November, 2015. On 2nd November, 2015, the appellant/plaintiff withdrew the appeal. However, counsel for the respondent/defendant, who had been served with the notice of the appeal, submitted that the respondent was desirous of filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC and for filing of which the respondent/defendant had one month time from the date of service on 16th October, 2015 and which time had not expired. This Court, though dismissed the Regular Second Appeal as withdrawn, but reserving the right of the respondent/defendant to file the cross-objections.

3. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant filed CM.No.5075/2016 under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC by way of cross-objections, along with application for condonation of 48 days delay in re-filing the cross-objections and application for stay of the impugned judgment and decree.

4. The aforesaid applications came up before this Court on 16th February, 2016 and thereafter on 19th April, 2016 when, again without indicating the substantial question of law if any arising in cross-objections, notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Since then, the cross-objections are pending consideration.

5. The counsel for the respondent/defendant/cross-objectioner has been heard and the copies of the Trial Court record annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal perused.

6. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit, from which the second appeal which stands withdrawn and the cross-objections which are for consideration arise, for recovery of possession of property no.641D, Khasra No.2891/104, Village Chandrawali, now known as Shahdara, near Loni Road, Ram Nagar, Delhi and for ancillary injunctions and mesne profit. The respondent/defendant/cross-objectioner contested the suit and a preliminary issue, as under, was framed on 31st March, 1989:

“Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD”

7. The aforesaid preliminary issue was decided vide order dated 11th April, 1990, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant/cross-objectioner, holding that the suit was properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. Neither party preferred any challenge to the aforesaid order dated 11th April, 1990.

8. Thereafter, the following issues were framed in the suit on 15th May, 1991:

“(1) Whether jurisdiction of this court is barred under DLR Act? OPD

(2) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no.2? OPD

(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

(4) Whether the defendant no.1 has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession? OPD

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for in the suit? OPP

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of the suit property? OPP

(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or mesne profit if so at what rate? OPP

(8) Relief”

9. The suit court, vide judgment dated 2nd May, 2012, passed a decree for recovery of possession and a decree for injunction and mesne profits in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant/cross-objectioner.

10. The respondent/defendant/cross-objectioner pre