IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed issues by the defendant no.1 were already covered by existing issues and did not need to be separately framed. The Court also emphasized the need to expedite the trial and proceed against the defendants if they were deliberately not participating in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. - This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the SCJ - cum - RC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Trial Court) in civil suit no. 96109/2016, titled as Smt. Amrinder Kaur v. Hargurusharan Singh, whereby the Trial Court while deciding the Petitioners application under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), re-framed the issues, which reads as under:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration and permanent injunction? OPP

2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

3. Whether suit of plaintiff is improperly valued? OPD

4. Whether suit is barred by Sec. 34 of Specific Relief Act? OPD

5. Whether Armender Kaur and Armender Hargovind Singh are two different entities and that suit is filed by Amrender Hargovind Singh, impersonating as Amrender Kaur? OPD

6. Relief.

1.1. It is a matter of record that issues were earlier settled in the suit proceedings on 13.01.2016.

2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order to the effect that Trial Court while reframing the issues, deleted certain issues earlier framed vide order dated 13.01.2016 and did not frame the issues suggested in the application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC.

2.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant no.1, the Respondent no.1 is the plaintiff and Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are defendant nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the civil suit. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 respectively, are the son-in-law and daughter of defendant no.1 and have been proceeded ex-parte before the Trial Court. Similarly, the said defendant nos. 2 and 3 have not appeared in these proceedings.

2.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants from interfering in her possession of the subject land. The declaration has been sought to the effect that the sale deed dated 03.07.1991 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3, as delineated in Book no.1, Vol. 397/403, pages 117/149-152 A.D.A.D-1 no. 1405 dated 04.07.1991, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, be declared as fabricated and void.

3. For ease of reference, the parties are being referred to by their original rank and status as is before the Trial Court.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under:

4.1. Initially, a cultivable land bearing plot no.1/5, M Area 2.426 hqt., with rent of Rs. 60/- per years, situated in village, Bihat Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur (subject land), was owned by Col. Hargobind Singh, who had gifted the said land to the plaintiff i.e., Smt. Amrinder Kaur, by way of gift deed dated 17.07.1979. The plaintiff is the daughter of Col. Hargobind Singh and Smt. Parminder Kaur.

4.2. The defendant no.1 i.e., Sh. Hargurusharan Singh, is the paternal uncle of plaintiff. A power of attorney (PoA) was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 on 27.03.1991. However, in the plaint it is stated that the said PoA was orally cancelled in April, 1991, and subsequently, the same was cancelled in writing as well. It is stated that thereafter, the defendant no.1 herein was left with no right, authority or interest to transfer the said subject land.

4.3. It is stated that however, despite the aforesaid cancellation of PoA, the defendant no.1 subsequently, vide sale deed dated 03.07.1991, fraudulently transferred the subject land to defendant nos. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-.

4.4. It is stated that the plaintiff learnt about the aforesaid said fact upon inspection of the revenue records and consequently, present civil suit was filed by the plaintiff through her mother, Smt. Parminder Kaur, as her attorney.

4.5. The defendant no.1 filed his written statement to the said suit, inter alia, disputing the authority of Smt. Parminder Kaur to file the suit on the ground that she had never been or is the power of attorney holder of the pl