$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 1134/2025 HARI OM & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate versus RAM PHAL SEHRAWAT & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025 CM APPL. 78677/2025 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CM APPL. 78675/2025 By way of the present application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellants seek exemption from filing the entire Trial Court Record.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.

3. Let trial court record be requisitioned in electronic form; and copy of TCR be supplied to counsel on request.

4. The application stands disposed-of.

CM APPL. 78678/2025 (condonation of 15 days’ delay in re-filing

5. By way of the present application filed under section 151 CPC, the appellants seek condonation of about 15 days’ delay in re-filing the regular first appeal.

6. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the delay is condoned.

7. The application is allowed and disposed-of. RFA 1134/2025 & CM APPL. 78676/2025 (stay)

8. By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 read with Order XLI (1) & (2) CPC, the appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-05, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing CS DJ ADJ No.17587/2016.

9. Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits, that as would be seen from a perusal of the impugned judgement, in particular, para 61 thereof, the learned trial court has taken the view that the names of the appellants (plaintiffs) do not figure anywhere in the khatoni for the year 2002-03. In view thereof the learned trial court has opined that none of the documents were sufficient to adjudicate the question of title or settled possession of the appellants.

10. Counsel however argues, that the learned trial court has completely misread the concerned revenue record, namely the khatoni for the year 2002-03, inasmuch as the updated record of bhumidhari rights in the said khatoni, in column 7 serial nos. 4 and 5 do show the name of the appellants updated upto 2014.

11. Counsel submits, that the impugned judgment proceeds on a misreading of the evidence placed on record.

12. Issue notice.

13. Upon the appellants taking steps, let notice be sent to the respondents by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.

14. Let the notice indicate that reply to CM APPL. No. 78676/2025 be filed within 06 weeks of service; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copy to the opposing counsel.

15. No reply is required in the appeal.

16. On a prima facie view of the matter, in view of the submissions made and the documents on record, it is directed that all parties shall maintain status-quo as to title, possession and construction of the suit property, Khasra No. 12//23/1/2, Revenue Estate of Village Pochan Pur, New Delhi, till the next date of hearing before this court.

17. Re-notify on 11^th March 2026 before the learned Joint-Registrar for completion of service; and for completion of pleadings in CM APPL.

No. 78676/2025.

18. List before court thereafter.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J DECEMBER 12, 2025 ss