The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave errors or abuses of discretion, not to re-evaluate factual findings or legal conclusions of lower courts.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India emanates from the order dated 06.05.2024 as well as the order dated 18.10.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge-01, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”) in CS/DJ/ADJ/122/2020 titled as “Reeta Lalwani vs Delhi Development Authority &Ors”. The petitioner is aggrieved that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2023 allowed the defendant Page 2 of 8 no.12/respondent no.12 to place his written statement on record after closing the right to do so and framed two preliminary issues which are contrary to the material on record and thereafter vide the order dated 06.05.2024, dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order dated 18.10.2023. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the learned Trial Court.

2. A brief factual background leading to the filing of the present petition is that in February 2020, the petitioner filed the present suit for declaration, partition, possession, mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The contention of the petitioner in the suit is that her mother is the owner of the property bearing No.243, Block H, Vikas Puri, New Delhi which was sold by the respondents on the basis of will dated 05.02.2001. This being the main contention of the petitioner, it is not necessary to enumerate the other facts as mentioned before the learned Trial Court.

3. Summons for the settlement of issues were issued on 18.02.2020, however due to the ongoing COVID pandemic, summons were finally served upon the respondents on 26.07.2021. Respondent no.12 entered appearance on 06.01.2022 and on 30.08.2022, it was observed by the learned Trial Court that the statutory time to file the written statement had expired, however respondent no.12 was asked to file his written statement subject to the prescribed statutory period. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no.12 failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time period and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2022, struck off the defence of respondent no.12. Page 3 of 8

4. Thereupon, the respondent no.12 moved two applications on the next day of hearing; one under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short “CPC”) and the other under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the order dated 14.12.2022, vide which the respondent no.12‟s defence was struck off. The petitioner sought some time to reply to the said applications and the matter was listed for arguments on all pending applications. However, on 18.10.2023 to the dismay of the petitioner, the written statement of the respondent no.12 was „taken on record‟. On the same day, the learned Trial Court framed two issues which are as follows:

1) Whether the present civil suit is within limitation ? OPP

2) Whether the present civil suit is barred u/s 53 B of Delhi Development Act, 1957 ? OPD

5. Finally, on 06.05.2024, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 114 & Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, to review the order dated 18.10.2023 which came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court wherein it was observed that the petitioner had no locus standi to seek review of the said order. The petitioner‟s challenge to the framing of preliminary issues was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court as it has found no ground to review the framing of preliminary issues. Accordingly, the present petition was preferred by the petitioner, to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.

6. Mr. Ankit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had erroneously dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner, while the application moved by respondent no.12 under Page 4 of 8 Order IX Rule 7 CPC was pending disposal for recalling the order dated 14.12.2022 vide which his defence was struck of