Pooja Sharma vs Girish Chandra & Anr on 6 May, 2022

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Pooja Sharma vs Girish Chandra & Anr on 6 May, 2022

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated October 30, 2021, whereby the ADJ-02, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court', for short) has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') and accepted the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC of the respondent No.1 and Sameera Gopal and granted the possession of the suit property being H.No.C-25, Sri Chand Park, out of Khasra No.23/6 and 7 situated in the area of village Matiala, Delhi measuring 200 sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property').

2. The facts as noted from the record are that the respondent No.1 and Sameera Gopal, the original plaintiff No.2, since deceased, whose legal representative Kumari Amulya Rao is on record, had filed a suit for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 possession and permanent injunction and mesne profits in respect of the suit property. They have filed the suit being the legal heirs / representative of late Shashi Prabha Mathur (original owner). It was their case before the Trial Court that the original owner purchased the suit property from Zile Singh S/o Chand vide sale deed dated March 03, 1983, which was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar-II, Delhi and as such, she became the absolute owner of the suit property.

3. The original owner died intestate on November 22, 2015, leaving behind respondent No.1 and Sameera Gopal (respondents) as her only legal heirs / representatives, and as such, they became the absolute owners of the suit property.

4. It was the case of the respondents that the original owner appointed Vardhman Jain the father of the appellant as the licensee to look after the suit property after constructing a room and fencing about, 2-3 years after the purchase of the plot. Vardhman Jain died in the year 2007 and his daughter Pooja Sharma, the appellant herein, came into the possession of the suit property as a licensee and started looking after the subject property. It was the case of the respondents that the original owner used to visit the suit premises quite often.

5. It was the case of the respondents that in the year 2012, the original owner entered into an agreement to sell dated September 24, 2012, with one Ishwar Singh for a sale consideration of ₹26 Lacs and earnest money of ₹5 Lacs was paid by Ishwar Singh and sale deed was to be executed in favour of Ishwar Singh on payment of balance amount of ₹21 Lacs agreed to be paid within two and a half months, i.e., till December 12, 2012. Since the balance amount was not paid, the earnest money paid by Ishwar Singh was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 forfeited. After about 8 months from the date of expiry of the stipulated period, the said Ishwar Singh filed a suit for mandatory, permanent injunction as well as recovery of damages / mesne profits bearing Suit No.298/2013 against the appellant herein namely Pooja Sharma, before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the suit property on August 13, 2013, claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property. Ishwar Singh did not implead the original owner as a necessary party in the said suit for the reasons best known to him. On coming to know about the pendency of the said suit, the original owner immediately filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading her as the party in the said suit. The original owner died during the pendency of the said application and therefore, respondent No.1 and Sameera Gopal being legal heirs of the original owner moved another application for impleadment in the said suit which was allowed vide order dated October 08, 2018, and the respondents were impleaded as parties in the said suit. The suit was filed by Ishwar Singh being Original Suit No.298/2013 was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Delhi vide order dated April 27, 2019.

6. It appears that the said judgment has attained finality as it was not taken in appeal. At least nothing has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties in that regard.

7. It was the case of the respondents that in terms of the written statement filed by the appellant in 2015 in the suit filed by Ishwar Singh, i.e., Suit No.298/2013 they have realised that the appellant was claiming right on the property as owner by way of adverse possession.

8. The written statement was filed by the appellant / defendant in this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 suit wherein a preliminary objection was taken on the maintainability of the suit on the ground of lack of cause of action / concealment of material facts. A plea was also taken that the suit is time-barred and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the suit property was purchased in the year 1983 but the suit was filed after more than 37 years and the appellant is in possession of the suit property for the last 35 years. The appellant denied all the averments made in the plaint and stated, that she is the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.

9. A replication to the written statement was filed. It was at this stage, that the respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC contending that the appellant has filed a vague written statement and has not denied the specific averments of the respondents with respect to the cause of action, the title of the original owner and the respondents being the legal heirs of the original owner. It was stated that the appellant except denying the averments has not explained the facts. Merely saying that she is the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, the appellant has not explained how she has entered into the suit property. The application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the appellant to add the following paragraphs to the written statement: "(i) The husband of the defendant Parma Nand Sharma purchased the suit property through his father-in-law Vardman Jain in the year 1989-90 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- from Shashi Prabha Mathur daughter of Sahib Dayal and constructed boundary wall and one room of asbestos sheet thereon measuring 8x10 in the year 1990-91. A hand pump was also installed in the said plot. Later, in the year 1992, the defendant got married with Parma Nand Sharma as he was known to her father for several years. Since Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 then she is in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, in the year 1995 the father of the defendant got transferred the said property in the name of his daughter, the defendant and she further construed in the suit plot a latrine and a bath room in the corner opposite to the said room. Again in the year 2003 she constructed another room of asbestos sheets measuring 10x17. In the year 2012 the defendant constructed the latrine and bathroom adjoining the said rooms and the boundary wall with cement mortar."

10. Another paragraph was added as paragraph 6 as reproduced hereunder:

"That the present suit is in fact, an afterthought to the suit bearing No. 175/13 as filed by Ishwar Singh against the defendant and plaintiff thereafter came to know that defendant is not in possession of the title documents as the same has been stolen and hence, has come out with a false and concocted allegation of licensee, when the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was not a licensee but was an owner as the suit property was sold to the predecessor-in-interest of defendant by the predecessor in interest of plaintiff and even otherwise, the defendant is in peaceful, hostile and continuous possession for the last more than 30 years and her possession was never disturbed by the plaintiff and they never visited the suit property hence, are not entitled to any relief as claimed in the suit."

11. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that by way of paragraphs 5 and 6 the appellant intends to substitute / introduce / alter paragraphs 5 and 6 and the same will not only result in allowing inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it shall also amount to displace Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the appellant in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed, the respondents will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the benefit of admission accrued in their favour.

12. On the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Trial Court was of the view that the appellant took a contradictory stand than the stand taken in the written statement, inasmuch as in paragraph 'C' of the preliminary objection in the reply to the effect that late Vardhman Jain was in possession of the suit property since 1989 as per his own right having purchased the suit property from Shashi Prabha Mathur but the defendant is not in possession of the said title deed as the same has been stolen from the house of the defendant.

13. It is also noted by the Trial Court that the appellant took another contradictory stand that the respondents have come to the Court after going through pleadings of the earlier suit titled Ishwar Singh vs. Pooja Sharma, wherein she has stated the documents of the suit property have been stolen and therefore, the respondents have made out a false ground of possession alleging license agreement. The respondents must have got the title documents of Vardhman Jain and they should be directed to file before the Court for effectual adjudication of the case.

14. The Trial Court also noted that the appellant took the plea of adverse possession being in continuous and undisturbed possession since 1989-90 hostile to the entire world and prayed for dismissal of the application. The Trial Court accepted the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC by coming to the following findings:

"15. In light of the legal principles reproduced above, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 coming to the facts of the present case, it is the case of the plaintiffs (para 2 and 3 of the plaint) that the Original owner purchased the suit property from Sh. Zilee Singh vide registered sale deed dated 03.03.1983 and the original owner after constructing a room and fencing the premises appointed late. Verdaman Jain to look after the property about 2-3 years after the purchase of the suit property. The defendant in her written statement merely denied the contents of the plaint without giving any cogent explanation to any of the material contentions raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint, in other words there is no specific denial on the part of the defendant to any of the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. The defendant in her written statement miserably failed to explain how her father Late Verdman Jain came into possession of the suit property. The only contention raised by the defendant in reply to the contents of each para of the plaint is that she and her father is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 35 years and hence the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The defendant further failed to give any explanation in her written statement to the effect that from which date/time, the possession of the defendant became hostile to the true owner or the entire world.

16. Interestingly, in reply to the application under Order 12 rule 6 of CPC, 1908, the defendant deviated from the stand taken in the written statement and took a contradictory stand Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 that she is in possession of the suit property in her own right, having purchased the property from the Original owner (Shashi Prabha Mathur) but the defendant is not in possession of the title deed as the same has been stolen from the house of the defendant in this regard an FIR bearing no.630 dated 24/07/2018 stands registered at PS-Bindapur. However, on perusal of the case file, the defendant has not placed on record the copy of the FIR in her list of documents. Further, in para „F‟ of the reply the defendant took alternative plea of adverse possession being in continuous, peaceful and undisturbed possession since 1989-90 hostile to the entire world.

xxx xxx xxx

20. In view of the legal principles reproduced above and the pleadings of the parties, as the defendant has not specifically denied and failed to explain in the written statement how her father came into possession of the suit property therefore by necessary implication it stands admitted that the father of the defendant Sh. Verdman Jain was appointed as licensee to look after the suit property in other words he was appointed as caretaker of the suit property by the original owner and after his death, the present defendant came into the footsteps of her father and therefore being a caretaker, defendant acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of long stay or possession as held in Maria Margadia sequeria (supra).

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44

21. The contradictory plea taken by the defendant that she is in possession of the property as her father purchased the property from Smt. Shashi Prabha Mathur seems to be an afterthought. Though she has taken the clever plea that the original documents are lost and FIR was also lodged to this effect, however, she has failed to disclose the day, month or year of purchase of suit property by her father from the original owner. Even the defendant has not annexed the copy of the FIR in the list of documents relied upon by her. Even otherwise as in every plea of adverse possession, by necessary implication there is an implied admission of ownership of the opposite party. The plaintiffs are successful in establishing better title than the defendants on the basis of registered sale (original) produced before the court for examination) vide which the suit property was purchased by the original owner.

22. Even for the sake of argument, if for the time being it is assumed that the defendant declared her hostile possession against the true owner in her written statement filed in the earlier suit titled as "Ishwar Singh vs. Pooja Sharma" in the year 2015 claiming herself to be the owner of the suit property being purchased by her father from the Original owner, the present suit is filed within a period 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse as envisage under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Even otherwise the possession cannot be termed as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 continuous and peaceful as the Original Owner / plaintiffs immediately moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC, 1908 for their impleadment as necessary party in the said civil suit.

23. In view of the above observations and discussions, the application under Order 12 rule 6 of CPC, 1908 is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed for the relief of possession. Accordingly, defendant is directed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit premises bearing H.No.C-25, Sri Chand Park, out of khasra No.23/6 and 7 situated in the area of village Matiala, Delhi measuring 200sq.yds. (hereinafter referred to as the „suit property‟), to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the pronouncement of this judgement."

15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application of the appellant / defendant for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. He states that the appellant being the defendant in the suit and having filed a written statement, was within her right to take inconsistent pleas and the same cannot be a ground for the Trial Court to reject the application for amendments. He states that the amendments to the plaint are not similar to the amendment of the written statement where the defendant (appellant herein) is competent and within her right to seek amendments of the same by incorporating inconsistent pleas.

16. In support of his submission he has relied upon the following judgments:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44

(i) Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1663;

(ii) Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar vs. Mahabir Prasad & Ors., AIR (38) 1951 SC 177;

(iii) C. Mohammed vs. Ananthachari, AIR 1988 Kerala 298; and

(iv) Dadabhau Shankar Ghodke vs. Mohanlal Kanhyalal Agrawal, 2003 (1) MhLJ 446.

17. He states had the amendments been allowed, the appellant / defendant could have pressed for one of the alternative pleas at the stage of evidence or at a subsequent stage. In other words, he states that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application. Even on the aspect of allowing the application of the respondents under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not appreciated that the appellant (defendant) has been paying MCD Tax, Electricity Bills and all other expenses for the suit property and her name is being maintained in the record of the statutory authorities.

18. According to him, when for more than 35 years despite the categorical knowledge, of the fact that the suit property is in possession of the appellant, the respondents had not initiated any action, except the filing of the suit in the year 2019, the Trial Court could not have granted the possession of the suit property only on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Further, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant / defendant has not admitted the right of the respondents for them to make an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The respondents have never approached the appellant for possession of the suit property at least since 1989-90. The suit was filed only because of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 pleadings in the earlier suit, i.e., Ishwar Singh vs. Pooja Sharma as respondents had come to know that the title documents with regard to the suit property in favour of the appellant have been stolen. The Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the alternative plea that the appellant being in continuous and undisturbed possession since 1989 hostile to the entire world has become owner by way of adverse possession, which aspect would require to be decided by adducing evidence in the trial and could not have decided / rejected the issue on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Even the rejection order was passed in a perfunctory manner.

19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has justified the impugned order on the ground that the appellant has not placed on record any document showing her title to the suit property. She states the appellant has taken four different stands to justify her ownership: (1) through adverse possession; (2) her husband has purchased the property through her father; (3) her father has purchased the suit property from the original owner, and (4) she has purchased the property from the original owner. She states it is by noting these contradictions that the Trial Court has allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC by rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. In this regard, she has relied upon paragraph 20 of the impugned order. That apart, she states that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application for amendment of the written statement because, the amendments sought for, shall not only result in allowing inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it will also displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the appellant in the written statement. She seeks the dismissal of the appeal.

20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application of the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and allowing the application filed by the respondents under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and thereby granting possession with regard to the suit property to the respondents herein. I have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs which sought to be incorporated by the appellant in her written statement by way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The law with regard to amendments sought under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is well settled and the same has been noted by the Trial Court as under:-

(i) An application needs to be moved at the pre-trial stage.

(ii) It can be moved at a later stage to introduce facts that are of subsequent development.

(iii) The amendment must not change the basic structure of the plaint and / or later the subject matter of the suit.

(iv) The amendments are required to decide the real controversy in the suit justification needs to be given why the pleadings sought to be incorporated could not be introduced in the initial stage.

(v) Withdrawal of the admission is impermissible. The admission should not affix the right already accrued in favour of the other side.

21. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in stating that the amendment of the plaint is not akin to an amendment of the written statement. The Supreme Court in the cases on which reliance is placed has clearly held that the defendant is within its right to seek amendment of the written statement by incorporating alternative pleas. But in no case, an admission already made can be withdrawn. Under the heading preliminary objections, the appellant / defendant has in her written statement stated as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 under:

"1. That the present suit and counter claim as framed and filed is a gross abuse and misuse of process of law and legal machinery, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

2. That there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and- against the defendant for filing the present suit and counter claim, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3. That the plaintiffs have not come to this Hon'ble court with clean hands and have concealed the true and correct material facts from this Hon'ble court, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. That, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit and counter claim with v. malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the defendant, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. That the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone because the plaintiff alleged to be purchased the suit property in the year 1983 but he file the present suit after more than 37 years and the defendant is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 35 years, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs."

22. By way of amendments, the appellant intended to state that her husband Parma Nand Sharma purchased the suit property through his father-in-law Vardman Jain in the year 1989-90 for a sum of ₹25,000/-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44

from the original owner. This plea of the appellant according to the Trial Court is at in variance with the plea of adverse possession taken in the preliminary objection as noted above. The Trial Court also stated that if this amendment is allowed the same shall also amount to withdrawing admission made by the appellant in her written statement, which will prejudice the case of the respondents (the plaintiffs). That apart even this amendment sought shall be further at variance with the stand taken in the written statement earlier in the suit filed by Ishwar Singh being Suit No.298/2013 by the appellant that she is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from Shashi Prabha Mathur daughter of Sahib Dayal.

23. So in effect the appellant / defendant has taken three different pleas other than that of adverse possession, seeking ownership of the property which are contradictory and not alternative.

24. Interestingly, no document, with regard to ownership of Parma Nand Sharma; Vardhman Jain, or her ownership, has been placed on record. It is precisely this which has been highlighted by the Trial Court in paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of the impugned order which I reproduce as under:-

"17. On bare perusal of the paras reproduced above, it seems that the defendant is trying to make a deliberate attempt to cause delay in the present case. Initially, the stand of the defendant in her written statement was that she became owner of the property by way of adverse possession, now by present amendment she wants to introduce entirely a new plea that the property was purchased by her husband through(sic) his father-in-law Sh. Vardman Jain back in 1989-90 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 original owner namely Smt. Shahi Prabha Mathur, which is not only contradictory to her earlier stand, but it will also takes away the right accrued in favour of the plaintiff, as the defendant has not specifically denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit property in his original written statement. Additionally the plea is not supported by any sale document. Interestingly, the defendant further want to introduce new fact regarding the loss of sale documents and pleads that she also got registered FIR in this regard, which seems to be in nature of lacuna to fill up the gaps(sic) left open in the original written statement by virtue of which the plaintiff filed the application for judgment on admission.

18. In the case of the Modi Spg. Mills v. Ladha Ram & sons relied upon by the plaintiff, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that "the defendant cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in certain paragraphs of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case".

19. In the instant case, the effect of substitution / introduction/alteration of paragraphs 5 & 6 by way of amendment will not only result in allowing inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it will also amount to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed, the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the benefit of admission accrued in his favour. As far as other amendments are concerned i.e. inadvertent error in mentioning Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 the word "counter claim" in certain paras of the written statement are formal defects which do not have any material bearing in the present case."

25. Assuming, even if the amendments had been allowed, the plea of ownership would still, not have sustained as the plea of adverse possession and the plea of ownership are mutually inconsistent in view of the settled position of law. The latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. In this regard, a reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama & Ors. vs. P. Prakash, Civil Appeal No. 4125/2009, wherein it has been held as under:

"17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide : Periasami v. P. Periathambi MANU/SC/0821/1995 : (1995)6SCC523 , Md.

                                    Mohammad       Ali   (dead)        by     LRs.   v.   Jagdish   Kalita


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:10.05.2022
19:45:44
                                     MANU/SC/0785/2003         :    (2004)1SCC271            and   P.T.

Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma MANU/SC/7325/2007 :

AIR2007SC1753 )."

(emphasis supplied)

26. That apart, this Court has repeatedly held that a purchaser cannot sustain the possession of the property in the absence of a registered document. In this case, no document has been placed on record to show ownership. For this purpose, I refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Tuli vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 1006/2020, wherein it has been held as under:

"32. It is well settled that in order to give benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the document relied upon must be a registered document. Any unregistered document cannot be looked into by the court and cannot be relied upon on or taken into evidence in view of Section 17(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act. Thus, benefit of Section 53A could have been given to the respondent, if and only if the alleged Agreement to Sell cum receipt satisfied the provisions of Section 17(1) A of the Registration Act (Refer Arun Kumar Tandon v. Akash Telecom Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

MANU/DE/0545/2010)."

27. Recently, this Court on the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC in the case of Sh. Dinesh Sharma vs. Mrs. Krishna Kainth, RFA 293/2021, has held as under:

"29. .......Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can also be invoked when Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44 the objections raised against rendering a judgment are such, which goes to the root of the matter or whether the objections are inconsequential, making it impossible for the party to succeed, even if entertained......."

28. Further, at no point of time the appellant has approached a Court to exert her right as an owner.

29. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

CM APPL. No. 21059/2022

Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MAY 06, 2022/aky Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:10.05.2022 19:45:44

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders