CM(M) No.577/2012 Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CM(M) No.577/2012

LALITA AWASTHI

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv. with

Mr.Madhurendra Sharma, Adv.

versus

VIDYA DEVI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through

Ms.Anjali Chopra, Adv. for R-1.

Mr.Desh Deepak Tyagi, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28^th March, 2012 whereby

the application filed by the petitioner for treating the suit, being Suit

No.29/2011 in continuation of the old suit and hearing the said suit from the

stage of final arguments and adjudicate upon the remaining issues framed in

Suit No.770/2007 was dismissed.

2.

The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession as well as

injunction against the respondents/defendants (Suit No. 770/1993).

Circumstances that led to the suit are as follows:

i.

That petitioner is the owner of property “MIG DDA Flat

bearing No.3, Pkt D Phase II, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, situated on

2^ndfloor” (hereinafter referred to as the „said property‟) having

purchased the same from Shri Ashok Kumar Kaushal and all

relevant documents were executed in favor of petitioner and

same is duly registered.

2013:DHC:4869

CM(M) No.577/2012 Page 2 of 10

ii.

Due to some urgent need of money the petitioner approached

Shri Rakesh Chopra (respondent No.5) for a sum of Rs.

1,00,000/- against a mortgage of the said property and handed

over the documents thereof. Thereafter when the petitioner

went to Shri Rakesh Chopra to recover the property papers, he

refused to return them and thereafter transferred the suit

property in the name of respondent no. 1 by way of fabricated

and forged documents.

iii.

Thereafter the respondents by force and illegal means evicted

the petitioner from the suit property following which many

FIRs were filled and the respondent was taken in police custody

on account of committing forgery. Also stated, that due to the

pressures exerted by the respondents, the petitioner was

compelled to stay in a tenanted premises. Upon request of the

petitioner to hand over the possession of the suit property, the

respondents threatened to sell off the same so that the petitioner

cannot recover possession thereof. Hence the suit was filed.

3.

By order dated 4^th May, 1999, the learned Civil Judge framed six

issues.

4.

The petitioner examined 11 witnesses in support of her case including

herself. On other hand, the respondent No.1 examined herself in support of

her case. The other respondents did not lead any evidence. The matter was

put up for final arguments on 27^th August, 2010 and it was again put up on

4^th September, 2010 and during the course of arguments, the Court treated

issue No.1 as preliminary issue.

2013:DHC:4869

CM(M) No.577/2012 Page 3 of 10

5.

On 7^th September, 2010, the said preliminary issue No.1 about the

pecuniary jurisdiction was decided against the petitioner holding that the suit

had to be valued at least at `5,00,000/- for the relief of possession and

directed the petitioner to pay the deficient court fee on 21^st September, 2010.

The issue No.1 reads as under:

“1. Whether the suit property valued for the purpose of

Court fee and jurisdiction.”

6.

The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 24 read

with section 151 CPC for transfer of suit from Civil Court to the Court of

Additional District Judge for contesting the suit on merit. The said transfer

petition, being M-68/2010, was listed for hearing on 15^th September, 2010,

29^th September, 2010 and 11^th November, 2010. In the meanwhile, the

petitioner filed an app