The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to avoid conflicting findings of two courts regarding the validity and enforceability of the documents in question.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the Civil Suit bearing No.SCJ/538091/2016 titled Saroj Behl v. Sushma Baatra & Ors. pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge (North), Rohini Courts, to this Court, to be tried along with CS(OS) No.1099 of 2013 titled Mr.Chaman Kumar Mehra & Ors. v. Mrs.Gian Devi Mehta & Ors.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues framed in the suit pending before the High Court are also on whether the registered release deed dated 23.10.1982 allegedly executed by the petitioner herein, and the Will dated 03.02.1977, allegedly executed by Late Sh.Laxman Das Mehta, and the Will dated 16.01.2014 executed by Late Smt.Gian Devi Mehta are valid and enforceable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that same documents are in challenge in the suit filed by the petitioner and pending adjudication before the learned Senior Civil Judge (North), Rohini Courts, of which transfer is prayed for. He submits that, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the two suits are tried together.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the said respondents have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC') seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner. He submits that the present petition has been filed only to scuttle the adjudication of the said application and, therefore, is an abuse of the process of law. He submits that the suit before this Court was filed in the year 2013, while the suit filed by the petitioner before the learned District Court was filed in the year 2016. The petitioner has not shown any cause to explain the delay in filing of the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that all the parties to the suit pending before this Court, have not been made parties in the present petition. He submits that the plaintiff no.1 in the suit pending before this Court, namely Sh.Chaman Kumar Mehta, is not a party to the present petition. He further submits that the suit filed by the petitioner, pending adjudication before the learned District Court, is not maintainable and, therefore, the present petition should not be allowed.

5. He further submits that the suit filed by the petitioner before the learned District Court had been dismissed earlier for non- prosecution. It was restored, subject to payment of cost of Rs.8,000/-. He submits that the cost has not been paid by the petitioner and, therefore, the suit is still not restored.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder disputes the above statement and submits that the cost has been duly paid.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. This Court, vide its order dated 03.08.2022, passed in CS(OS) no.1099/2017, has framed inter alia the following issues:

" xxxx

(iv) Whether the registered Release Deed dated 23.10.1982 executed by Smt. Reshma Mehra and Mrs. Saroj Behl along with Shashi Kumar Mehta and Sushma Batra in favour of Smt. Gian Devi Mehta deceased Defendant No.1 is null and void? OPP

(v) Whether Late Shri Laxman Dass Mehta bequeathed his entire movable and immovable assets in favour of Late Smt. Gian Devi Mehta deceased defendant No.1 vide registered Will dated 03rd February, 1977?

OPD 3 & 4

xxxx

(ix) Whether the Will dated 16.01.2014 of Late Smt. Gian Devi Mehta is valid and enforceable?

OPD 3 & 4."

9. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner before the learned District Court prays for the following reliefs:

"(a) A decree of declaration whereby declaring the Release Deed dated 23.10.1982 and the alleged General Power of Attorney as stated in aforesaid Release Deed; and Will dated 16.1,2014 and Will dated 3.2.1977, in respect of property bearing No.K-1/41, Model Town, Delhi, to be null and void and be not binding on the plaintiff