The need for comprehensive adjudication of all issues together and the requirement to record evidence on all issues, including the issue of maintainability, in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present appeal challenges the impugned order dated 13th September, 2018 passed by the JSCC-cum-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts, by which the Appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court, for a decision on the preliminary issue.

3. This appeal has a long and chequered history. A suit for injunction, Suit No. 224/02, titled H.D. Bhalla v. Dr. Manish Kr., was filed in 2002 by one Sh. H.D. Bhalla – Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter ‘Plaintiff’) against the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter ‘Defendant’), in respect of the land measuring 250 sq. yards, forming part of Khasra No.121/9, situated at Village Palam, Delhi, now known as Defence Enclave (hereinafter ‘suit property’).

4. The case of the Plaintiff, who has since passed away and is represented by his son and other legal heirs, was that he had purchased this property initially from Sh. Pal Singh who had in turn purchased the plot from Sh. Baljeet Singh. The entire chain of documents in respect of the purchase by the Plaintiff, Sh. H.D. Bhalla, has been set out in the plaint. Initially, the premises was given on tenancy, however, the Plaintiff came to know on 20th May, 2001, when he visited the premises, that the Defendant -Sh. Munish Kumar, accompanied by anti-social elements, was trying to dispossess the tenant of the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Defendant also threatened the Plaintiff and tried to remove the name plate of the Plaintiff from the outer gate of the suit property. A suit for injunction against dispossession was then filed by the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. The reliefs sought in the suit are as under:

“(a) Restrain the defendants No.1 and 2, their agents, servants, employees and friends by means of permanent injunction from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff, his tenant and employees from the suit premises bearing No.26, Defence Enclave, A Block, Palam Village, Delhi shows red in the plan attached.

(b) Any other relief the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be also granted.”

5. The case of the Defendant on the other hand was that a simple suit for injunction is not maintainable. According to him, the Plaintiff ought to have sought declaration prior to filing a suit for injunction. The Defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property from M/s Rajnish Trust, who had in turn purchased it from Sh. S.C. Madhok.

6. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed in the matter by the trial court, vide an order dated 15th February 2005:

“1. Whether suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

2. Whether there does not exists any privity of contract between the parties? OPD.

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

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP

5. Relief.”

7. Thereafter, five applications were moved by the Defendants:

(i) An Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC;

(ii) An Application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC;

(iii) An Application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC;

(iv) An Application under Section 340 of the CrPC and

(v) An application for verification of the suit property.

These applications, surprisingly, were decided in 2013 after a gap of 12 years. Vide order dated 18th July, 2013, the Trial Court observed that there is a cloud over the title of the Plaintiff and hence a preliminary issue was framed to the following effect:

“Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? OPP.”

8. The Trial Court, vide order dated 7th July, 2017 rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, on the ground that the suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking a prayer for declaration. The said order was then carried in appeal by the Plaintiff, in which the impugned order remanding the matter back to the Trial Court, has been passed by the ld. ASCJ, Dwarka Courts.

9. The submission of