$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 208/2025, CM APPL. 78106/2025, CM APPL. 78108/2025 SH. RAJ PAL SINGH & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Jaya Goyal with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Mr. Sarthak, Advocates.

versus SH. RANJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Mohit Gupta, Ms. Seemab Ali Fatima, Mr. Parth Gautam, Advocates.

Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing Counsel for MCD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025 CM APPL. 78107/2025 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed-of.

RSA 208/2025 By way of the present regular second appeal filed under section

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-04, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in appeal bearing RCA No. DJ 16/2020, whereby the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, challenging judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in suit bearing Case No.254/2017 (‘second suit’).

2. The genesis of the present regular second appeal is order dated

26.08.2016 passed by the learned trial court in suit bearing No. 188/2007 (‘first suit’) on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in which case the learned trial court was pleased to reject the plaint with the following relevant observations:

“4. However, the said ground is incorrect, as in the application u/o VI R 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiffs claimed to be the sons of Mahinder and Hemraj, great grandson of late Sh. Nathu. In the application, plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to three brothers namely Jhumman, Nathu and Lala. The application u/o VIR 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order mentioned and reproduced above and the said order has attained finality. As such as on date, as per plaint, the plaintiffs are claiming share in the property in which their great grandfather Sh. Nathu had no interest as per plaint itself. It is found that their submission in para 2 of the plaint that they and the defendants originated from the common ancestor i.e. late Sh. Jhumman Singh and Sh. Sunehari was incorrect and false and entire claim of the plaintiffs was based on the ground that they are agnates of the two owners of the property i.e. Jhumman and Lala.

“5. Now that it has been admitted, rather, asserted by the plaintiffs themselves that they are not the agnates of Jhumman and Lala and they are great grandsons of Nathu, who as per para no. 1 of the plaint had no share in the property, hence the claim of the plaintiffs is baseless, Plaintiffs tried to correct the same by moving application ulo VI R 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but the same was dismissed by reasoned order.

“6. Accordingly as on date, as per plaint, Late Nathu had no right in the property in question and plaintiffs being agnates of Nathu, also do not have any right in the property because as per plaint the property in question belonged to Jhumman and Lala i.e.

predecessor in interest of defendants.

“7. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable being without any cause of action, rather, the entire case was based on a wrong premise that the plaintiffs were agnates of Jhumman & Lala, though they were agnates of Nathu, who never had any interest in the property.

“8. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

“9. The suit stands dismissed.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. The aforesaid order dated 26.08.2016 passed in suit bearing No.

188/2007 was taken-up in a (different) appeal, which appeal was subsequently disposed-of as withdrawn vide order dated 06.12.2016, with the learned first appellate court recording as follows:

“Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that he has instructions to withdraw the appeal and he may be, granted liberty to