Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The Regular First Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2007 whereby the Defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) came to be allowed and consequently the Suit was dismissed. The Appeal has been filed on 18.11.2008 along with the subject application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Order XLI Rule 3A and Section 151 of the CPC praying therein that the delay of 507 days may be condoned.

2. In order to give a perspective to the contentious issues that arise in the application, the facts of the dispute between the parties should be succinctly stated. Admittedly, a Consent Decree was passed in CS(OS) No. 749/1994 on 23.3.2003 in respect of the suit property, viz. S-23, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi which was a suit for specific performance and possession filed by the contesting Respondent herein. The Appellant was not a party to those proceedings and asserts that they were collusive in nature. In Execution Petition No. 321/2003, a Local Commissioner had been appointed and he visited the suit property on 27.7.2004. The Appellant asserts that he gained knowledge of the alleged collusive proceedings between the Respondent as a consequence of the visit of the Local Commissioner. The Appellant has filed Objections in the Execution Proceedings on 30.10.2004. During the pendency of those Objections, CS(OS) No. 1358/2008 was filed on 20.9.2005 by the Appellant praying for the following Reliefs:-

(a) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the agreement to sell dated 30.4.1993 executed between the defendant No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 4 is null and void.

(b) Pass a decree of declaration in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that the decree dated 28.3.2003 passed in Suit No. 749 of 1994 is a nullity in the eyes of law and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff in any manner and the said decree be cancelled. A direction may also be issued to the Revenue Authorities to de-mutate the mutation if any effected in favor of the Defendant No. 4 in respect of the suit property.

(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction permanently restraining the defendants and/or every other persons acting on their behalf including their agents, attorneys, accomplices and servants from interfering with the actual possession and renovation/ construction of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and restraining them from creating any further any charge, encumbering or third party right pursuant to the passing of the decree dated 28.3.2003, in respect of the suit property bearing Nos. S-23, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

(d) Pass a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from not to use the suit property same except for residential purpose and in accordance with the sanctioned lay out plans.

3. The Suit and the Objections in the Execution Petition came up together before the same learned Single Judge and vide Order dated 16.5.2007 the Suit was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the impugned Order dated 16.5.2007, the framing of the following Issues in the Execution Proceedings were noted and the learned Single Judge expressed his view that - "all aspects that are required to be examined insofar as the claim of the plaintiffs about their right of possession of the first floor (which in turn is arising from the alleged mortgage of the property) as also about the plea of fraud would be adjudicated in those execution proceedings after trial... The nature of reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs and the issues framed in the execution proceedings leave no manner of doubt that it is in the execution proceedings that the enquiry about the objections and claims of the plaintiffs would have to be carried out and a separate suit for the reliefs as claimed is not maintainable".

4. The Appellant pursued its Objections in the Execution Proceedings, but in the event, unsuccessfu