The court reinforced that simultaneous claims of adverse possession and lawful title cannot co-exist, highlighting inconsistencies in legal outcomes for similar cases involving the same parties and issues.

ORDER

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 9th May, 2016 of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02 (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA No.29/2015 (Case ID No.02402C0025602015)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree [dated 29th June, 2015 of the Court of Commercial Civil Judge (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Suit No.996/2006 (oldest No.87/1984)] allowing the suit filed by the respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs i.e. Mahabir Steel Rolling Mills and Sh. Shri Dayal against the appellants/defendants Ram Bhateri Sharma and Kamlesh Kumari as well as against the respondent no.3/defendant Santosh Kumari and passing a decree in favour of respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs and against the appellants/defendants and respondent no.3/defendant, directing the appellants/defendants to hand over peaceful vacant possession of property bearing Municipal No.1/3305, situated in Ram Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi as shown in red colour in site plan Ex.PW1/9 as well as to pay mesne profits, to the respondents no.1&2/plaintiffs.

2. This Second Appeal along with an application for interim stay came up before this Court first on 3rd August, 2016 when, on the contention of the counsel for the appellants/defendants that the appellants/defendants had become owner of the property by adverse possession of the property qua which decree had been passed and the suit was barred by time, notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued and execution of the impugned judgments and decrees stayed. The counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs appeared on 19th October, 2016 and the matter was adjourned from time to time, without however framing any substantial question of law, which is the sine qua non to the admission and maintainability of a Second Appeal under section 100 of the CPC, arising in this appeal. The appeal came up before the undersigned on 30th July, 2018 when, the counsel for the appellants/defendants on being called upon to argue, dodged arguments and could only draw attention to the order dated 3rd August, 2016 recording his contention that the appellants/defendants had become owners by adverse possession and the suit was barred by time. On the contrary the counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs pointed out that the appellants/defendants on the one hand were claiming to have become owners by adverse possession and on the other hand claiming lawful title to the property. Observing, that the said two claims are antithetical to each other and cannot co-exist, the counsel for the appellants/defendants was asked to make a choice, whether he wanted to argue the appeal on the plea of adverse possession or on the plea of lawful title. The counsel for the appellants/defendants again sought adjournment. In the circumstances, the ex parte ad-interim order dated 3rd August, 2016 granting stay of execution was vacated and the appeal adjourned by way of last opportunity, to 5th December, 2018 for arguments.

3. The appellants/defendants, by engaging a new advocate, filed CM No.37934/2018 for leave to urge new and additional substantial questions of law and grounds of appeal. The said application came up before the undersigned on 17th September, 2018, when the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also appeared on seeing the matter in the cause list and stated that he had not been