RFA 289/2020 Page 1 of 30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: January 06, 2022

+

RFA 289/2020, CM Nos. 31213/2020, 31214/2020, 12897/2021,

12898/2021 & 15840/2021

MAJOR SURESH YADAV

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. Tarkeshwar

Nath, Advs.

versus

SH. JUGAL UPPAL & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. S.S. Wadhwa & Mr. Rajesh

Kumar, Advs. for R-1 & 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CM No. 12898/2021

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

RFA 289/2020, CM No. 31214/2020 (for delay)

1.

The appeal is filed against the original ex-parte judgment

/ decree dated December 22, 2017 of the learned Additional

District Judge (‘ADJ’, for short), Saket Courts, New Delhi, as

well as order dated February 10, 2020 in M.No.98/2018, whereby

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000066

RFA 289/2020 Page 2 of 30

the application of the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 read with

Section 151 of CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal

is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of 933

days’ delay with regard to filing of the appeal against the original

judgment / decree. Since the facts and the submissions made by

the counsels for seeking condonation of delay, on the impugned

Judgment / Decree and on the order rejecting the application

under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC being identical/similar, I intend

to decide both of them together.

2.

This appeal has been filed with the following prayers: -

under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.

The facts in brief as noted are that, the respondent no. l

and 2 herein / plaintiffs filed a suit in 2007 seeking cancellation

of a Sale Deed dated August 24, 2006 executed by defendant no.

5 / respondent No. 6 through defendant no. 3 / respondent No.

respondent No. 5, in favour of appellant / defendant no. 4 in

respect of suit property i.e., Mustatil No. 87 Killa No, 17(4-16)

and Killa No. 14 (4-12) situated in Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, New

Delhi, by declaring the same as null and void along with a decree

thereby declaring them as owners of the suit property. In

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000066

RFA 289/2020 Page 3 of 30

addition, respondents Nos. 1 and 2/ plaintiffs sought possession

and permanent injunction. The appellant herein was arrayed as

defendant no. 4 in the suit, which was instituted in this Court in

view of the then limit of pecuniary jurisdiction. Summons were

issued on November 05, 2007 and the defendants therein, i.e., the

appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 6, were directed not to create

any interest or part with the possession of the suit property in

favour of any third party.

4.

For the sake of convenience, the appellant/defendant

No. 4 and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs shall hereinafter

be referred to as ‘appellant’ and ‘plaintiffs’ respectively.

5.

The appellant in his Written Statement filed before the

Trial Court took preliminary objections that the documents relied

upon by the plaintiffs do not create any right whatsoever in their

favour, and that the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII

Rule 11 of the CPC since no cause of action has arisen in favour

of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs and against the

appellant. He also maintained that he had purchased the suit

property vide registered sale deed dated August 24, 2006 which

has been executed legally after making payment to the vendor

and thus he has become absolute