The main legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners approaching the court with false claims and seeking to undo court orders can be considered an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral):

CM APPL. 39921/2023 (for exemption)

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stand disposed of.

CM(M) 1245/2023

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 03.04.2023, 16.07.2022 and 19.02.2022 passed by the ADJ-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), in civil suit no. 15766/2016, titled as `Sube Singh v. Lakhami Chand'.

1.1. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.04.2023 has dismissed the application dated 17.12.2022 filed by the Petitioners herein under Order 9 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), for setting aside of the ex- parte order dated 19.02.2022.

1.2. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2022 has accepted the objections filed by Respondent (i.e., the plaintiff) to the report of the Local Commissioner and passed directions with respect to division of the suit properties between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1.3. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2022 has proceeded ex-parte against the legal heirs of the original defendant (i.e., the Petitioners herein).

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners herein are two (2) of the legal heirs of late Mr. Lakhmi Chand i.e., the original defendant in the civil suit for partition.

2.1. He states that after the death of late Mr. Lakhmi Chand, the application for bringing on record his eight (8) legal representatives was allowed by the Trial Court on 08.08.2018. He states that, however, after impleading the legal heirs no summons were issued by the Trial Court. He states that neither at the stage adjudication of application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC nor after the legal heirs were brought on record, any notice was issued by the Trial Court. He states that in these circumstances, the Petitioner herein were not aware that the proceedings before the Trial Court were continuing.

2.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that the plea that no notice was issued to the legal heirs after they were brought on record 08.08.2018, was not raised in the application filed before the Trial Court on 17.12.2022.

2.3. He states that though one of the legal heirs, Mr. Dharmender Singh, the son of Petitioner No.1 and the brother of Petitioner No.2 was regularly appearing in the suit proceedings, the Petitioners herein were not aware about the pendency of the civil suit proceedings. He states that the Petitioners herein are estranged from Mr. Dharmender Singh. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that no such plea of the estrangement has been raised in this petition or before the Trial Court.

2.4. He states that the Petitioners learnt about the pendency of the suit, when the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court visited the suit property in the month of March, 2022. He states that in fact Petitioner No.2 duly appeared in the suit proceedings on 24.08.2022 and an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.02.2022 was filed.

3. In reply, Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of Respondent (i.e., the plaintiff herein) and states that the matter is listed before the Trial Court today for enabling the Petitioners to deposit the appropriate stamp duty.

3.1. She states that the Petitioners have come to the Court with unclean hands. She states that the Petitioners herein were duly present when the Local Commissioner had visited the suit properties in the year 2018 and they have been personally aware about the pendency of the suit. She states that the plea that they became aware in the year 2022, is false and misleading.

3.2. She states that the plea of the Petitioners that they are estranged from Mr. Dharmender Singh is false. She states that Mr. Dharmender Singh has been regularly appearing in these proceedings for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of the late defendant. She states that Mr. Dharmender Sin