IMPORTANT POINT
The essential facts must be proven to obtain a decree, and the cause of action should be disclosed in the plaint in a manner justifiable in law.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This Judgment shall decide the present civil revision petition filed by the petitioner/revisionist, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs pending before the learned Trial Court, assailing the Impugned Order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi[ADJ], whereby the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908[CPC] seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, the present revision petition has been filed through the legal representative of late Usha Rani, who expired on 29.05.2021 during the pendency of the suit before the learned Trial Court. It is their case that the suit property bearing No. AE-197, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88[Suit Property] was gifted to Usha Rani vide Gift Deed dated 25.09.1980 by her father late Ram Saroop Gautam, out of natural love and affection and out of free will without any fraud and coercion. It is further claimed that the father of Usha Rani after the Gift deed wrote several letters to the DDA to transfer the lease rights owned by him to Smt. Usha Rani, and, after the due process of law, the lease rights in the suit property were transferred in her name.

3. It is further stated the said Smt. Usha Rani out of her own and her husband's resources, constructed a house on the suit property and executed a registered Conveyance Deed dated 29.01.2008 in her name. It is stated that during the lifetime of Smt. Usha Rani, she had executed a registered Will dated 26th October, 2017 wherein she had bequeathed right, title and interest in the suit property, in favour of her husband Sh. Bharmanand Sharma (Legal Representative of Smt. Usha Rani herein).

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that after 33 years, on 03.01.2017, the respondents herein filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 07/2017 titled as "Chander Mohan Gautam & Anr. versus Smt. Usha Rani & Ors." seeking reliefs of declaration, partition, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND IMPUGNED ORDER:

5. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, on 10.03.2017, the respondent No. 3/DDA herein was impleaded as a necessary party. The learned Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, on 22.10.2018, framed the following issues: -

"1. Whether suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee? OPD

2. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts, if so to what effect? OPD1

3. Whether D-1 is the absolute owner of the suit property? OPD1

4. Whether suit is not maintainable due to non-service of the mandatory notice under Section 53B of the DDA Act? OPD5

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition as prayed for? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

9. Relief."

6. The petitioner, on 25.05.2022, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the application are reproduced below: -

"(i) The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The suit has been filed after the lapse of 33 years which is barred by the Limitation Act, 1908.

(ii) The plaintiff in the entire plaint have not mentioned the fact as to when he came to know about the gift deed which was executed in favour of the defendant no. 1. Hence, creating an illusory cause of action.

(iii) The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed due to the specific bar of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration without the consequential relied of possession.

(iv) The shit of the pla