J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit no. 11098/16, whereby, the suit of the appellant was dismissed as being barred by limitation and not maintainable.

Brief factual matrix of the case

2. The appellant is the only daughter of late Shri Madan Gopal Trikha and late Smt. Chanderkanta Sharma. The appellant‟s mother was the registered owner of the property in question i.e. property bearing no. 6/6, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). Due to one reason or another, the mother of the appellant, Smt. Chanderkanta Sharma, started living separately from her husband in Delhi, while the appellant and her father were living in Pune. As per the appellant, Smt. Chanderkanta Sharma died intestate sometime in the year 1964 leaving behind her husband late Shri Madan Gopal Trikha and the appellant herein as her only legal heirs.

3. On 19.03.1958, an agreement was alleged to have been entered between late Smt. Chanderkanta Sharma and late Muni Lal Gupta, whereby, the suit property was sold to late Muni Lal Gupta for a consideration of Rs 15,000/-.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed

4. Thereafter, in 1966, late Muni Lal Gupta filed a suit bearing Civil Suit no. 359/1966 against late Smt. Chanderkanta Sharma for specific performance of the aforenoted agreement dated 19.03.1958. The said civil suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.08.1967 and in execution proceedings, the sale deed dated

12.11.1973 was executed in favour of late Muni Lal Gupta.

5. It transpires from the allegations that though since 1966, the appellant and her father, while residing in Pune, had heard rumours about the aforesaid alleged fraudulent transaction but they could not obtain any particulars to file a case. Thereafter, in 1987, when the appellant and her father finally came to Delhi, they eventually filed a civil suit bearing civil suit no. 429/1987 against late Muni Lal Gupta seeking the setting aside of judgment and decree dated 07.08.1967 passed in Civil Suit no. 359/1966 as null and void as it was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court.

6. Vide order dated 16.03.1992, the Trial Court had framed the following issues:-

“I) Whether the judgment and decree passed by Shri M.K, Bansal, Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi in Suit No, 359/1966, under title Muni LaiGupta vs, Chanderkanta Sharma was obtained on the basis of fraud and concealment of facts? OPP II) Relief”

7. Meanwhile, during the course of the proceedings, the defendant late Muni Lal Gupta had expired and an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was filed by the appellant, however, his legal representatives failed to appear to contest the said suit, and the suit was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.1995, the said civil suit was decreed, and judgment and decree dated 07.08.1967 passed in a civil suit bearing civil suit no. 359/1966 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed was set aside as nullity in law. On the basis of the said decree, the appellant, on 03.12.1997 filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property against the legal representatives of late Muni Lal Gupta.

8. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was moved by one of the legal representatives of the late Muni Lal Gupta for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 20.09.1995 passed in civil suit no. 429/1987. Vide order dated 07.11.2002, the said application was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1995 passed in civil suit no. 429/1987 was set aside, and thereby the Civil Suit no. 429/1987 was restored to its original position.

9. Aggrieved thereto, the appellant preferred a revision petition bearing C.R.P. no. 230/2003 befo