The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the law of limitation as a window of opportunity for seeking remedies from the Court.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. 1740/2023 (For setting aside the consent order/judgment dated 18th December, 2019)

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of defendant no.4/applicant under Section 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") seeking the indulgence of this Court for setting aside the consent order/judgment/decree dated 18th December 2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CS (OS) 2191/2009 titled as Neharika Gurnani vs Rameshwar Gopal and Ors.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The plaintiff had filed the captioned suit seeking partition, declaration, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction with respect to the Ancestral Property bearing No. WZ-296, G-Block, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi-110048, admeasuring 6000 square yards out of Khasra No.835/1/2, 836 & 837 situated in the revenue estate of Village Tihar, Tehsil Rajouri Garden, Delhi (West) (hereinafter "the said property") against a total of 51 defendants which after a period of 10 years reached the settlement under Order XXIII, Rule 1 and 3 of the CPC. The suit was amicably settled between the plaintiff and the defendants no. 1, 9, 10, and 11 (hereinafter "settling defendants") and the counsel for other few defendants namely defendant no. 18, LR of 17 and LRs of 19 stated their wish to not pursue the captioned suit. The suit against other defendants was therefore, dismissed as withdrawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th December 2019.

SUBMISSIONS

3. It is the case of the applicant that the impugned consent order/judgment/decree dated 18th December 2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was obtained by concealment of entire proceedings and decisions of various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the applicant. It is submitted that plaintiff had admitted in her suit that applicant has the absolute right in the said property on the basis of the statement dated 13th September 1976 of the Karta of the property and father of the applicant Late Sh. Bans Gopal in which he has stated that he along with his wife, four sons and two daughters had 1/8th share each in the said property and the same was also affirmed by mother of the applicant vide her reply dated 19th October 1982 to the Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Court of Sh. M. K. Chawla, Additional District Judge, Delhi passed Judgment/Decree dated 14.01.1980 in RCA No. 44 OF 1979 titled as Shri Bans Gopal (Deceased) now represented By Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Versus Delhi Development Authority & Another in favour of the Legal Representatives of Late Sh. Bans Gopal, i.e., legal representatives namely (1) Smt. Kalawati (Widow), (2) Sh. Rajeshwar Gopal (Son), (3) Shri Rameshwar Gopal (Son), (4) Shiveshwar Gopal (Son), (5) Manmohan Gopal (Son), (6) Rama Gopal (Daughter) & (7) Smt. Prabha Rani and upheld the ownership of the plaintiff for the said property.

4. It is submitted that during the period of November-December 2011, the applicant sold his house in Rohini, Delhi and shifted to Australia to live with his son (defendant no. 14) along with his wife (defendant no. 13). Thereafter, defendant no. 6 sent a legal notice dated 30th November 2013 claiming coparcenary rights in the said property at the email address of defendant no. 14 through her advocate which also included the name of the applicant and thereafter, applicant on his visit to India appointed his counsel on 14th August 2014. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 in the captioned suit filed the written statement dated 10th November 2016 falsely and collusively denying the shares of the applicant on the basis of a forged, fabricated, unregistered untested Will in respect of the Ancestral property as the legality, veracity and genuineness of the said Will is disputed. It is submitted that the existence of the Will was never disclosed in the past proceedings before various courts and the same