$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 24/2026 & CM APPL. 5319/2026 (stay)

RAJWANTI KADIAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shyam D Nandan & Mr. Sher Singh Jangra, Advs.

versus SUNITA SOOD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: yet to be served.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19^th November 2025, passed by the District Judge-05 (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No.709/2019, dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [CPC], filed by defendant no.4 [petitioner herein].

2. Mr. Shyam Nandan, counsel for petitioner, seeks to canvass the point that the impugned order, in paragraph 14, has pre-determined that the suit was one for possession based on title, though the suit was not of such nature.

Said paragraph is extracted as under:

“14. Even otherwise, the suit is essentially one for possession based on title. The plaintiff claims ownership and prior possession since 1983 and dispossession in the year 2011. Article 65 of the Limitation Act provides twelve years for recovery of immovable property when the defendant's possession becomes adverse. Taking the earliest adverse date as 05.02.2011, limitation would expire only in February 2023. The present suit filed in 2019 is, therefore, clearly within time. In any case, limitation shall remain mixed question of law and fact.”

3. He further contends that based on the registered sale deed, without any particulars of land in question having been conveyed as claimed by plaintiff [respondent herein], a suit had been filed seeking declaration of documents, executed in favour of petitioner being the fourth subsequent purchaser, to be declared null and void and other charges. Aside from the issue of limitation which would arise, he argues that question of title cannot be imported into the suit and it was not sought as part of the relief.

4. A perusal of the plaint bears out that the relief sought included a decree of declaration declaring the forged and fabricated documents executed in favour of defendants as null and void, as also a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff/respondent and against defendant no.4/petitioner, directing handing over of peaceful and actual physical possession of property along with other attendant reliefs.

5. This aspect has been considered in the impugned order and the Court has dealt with the issue of limitation, arriving at the conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation under the law, and therefore no ground is made out under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (a) to (d).

6. Counsel for petitioner, on this aspect relating to title, states that such issue has been imported by the impugned order. On this basis, counsel for petitioner relies on decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, to submit that possession cannot be sought without prayer for declaration of title, which was never sought by plaintiff/respondent in the previous suit.

7. Accordingly, on petitioner taking steps, notice be issued to respondents, through all permissible modes, returnable on 28^th April 226.

8. It is made clear that no interim relief has been granted and proceedings in the suit shall continue irrespective of the present proceedings.

9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 27, 2026/sm/tk