Delhi District Court
Sh. Jaspal Singh vs Sh. Surinder Singh on 16 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII
(CENTRAL DISTRICT): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCA No. 70/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0140602010
Sh. Jaspal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o F18A & B, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi
............. Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Surinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sant Singh
R/o F18A & B, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Sh. Satpal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
3. Ms. Bhupinder Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
Both R/o F18A & B, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi.
4. Smt. Pritpal Kaur
W/o Sh. Jarnail Singh
R/o 30A, MIG Flat, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
5. Smt. Bhajan Kaur
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Khattar
R/o 16/25A, First Floor,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi
.................. Respondents
Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 1 of 18
Date of Institution: 8.4.2010
Arguments heard on: 16.4.2015
Date of Decision: 16.4.2015
JUDGMENT (Oral):
(1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Jaspal Singh against the order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 3.4.2010 passed by Sh. Raj Kumar, Administrative Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Rent Controller (North), Delhi thereby allowing the application of the respondent (defendant no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court) under Section 11 read with Section 151 CPC holding that the suit filed by the appellant (plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court) was barred under Section 11 CPC.
(2) Various grounds have been raised in the appeal which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order of the Ld. Trial Court is patently illegal against law and fact and material available on record and is highly erroneous resulting into miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has misconstrued the meaning of resjudicata and on careful reading of the provisions as laid down under Section 11 CPC it is discernible that in order to constitute resjudicata the ingredients laid therein must be satisfied which incidentally the respondent has not been able to satisfy. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court has committed a grave error in not appreciating the settled law that even where the parties in two suits are the same and the matter in issue is directly and substantially identical, still the conditions of Section 11 Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 2 of 18 CPC are to be satisfied and proved by the party who alleged that the suit is barred by the principles of resjudicata. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly presumed that the suit is barred on the principles of res judicata in view of the earlier orders passed by the various courts and the Ld. Trial Court had committed grave error in dismissing of the suit on the said presumption. It is also submitted that the observations of the Ld. Trial Court that the issues in the suit now filed by the appellant as well as the earlier Suit No. 170/2007 were exactly the same, which is contrary to the record and the Ld. Trial Court has totally over looked the material facts while deciding the issues involved.
(3) Sh. Maninderjeet Singh Advocate for the appellant has pointed out that the father of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 5 filed a suit for possession, damages/ mesne profits for illegal use and occupation of the premises bearing No.F18, A & B Moti Nagar, New Delhi against the Respondent No.1, in which case issues were framed and the statement of the predecessor in interest of the Appellant was recorded who was partly cross examined. He has argued that during the course of crossexamination of the predecessor in interest of the appellant in the year 1997, the respondent No.1 moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC wherein it was alleged in para No.6 that the subject matter in dispute and the matter in issue in another suit entitled as Didar Singh Vs. Darshan Singh & Others is substantially the same and that the decision in the aforesaid suit would operate as resjudicata in this suit and in para No.7 of the said application it Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 3 of 18 was averred that by inadvertence, the said objection of resjudicata was not taken by the respondent no.1 (defendant before the Ld. Trial Court) and a separate application under Section 10 CPC for staying the proceedings was also moved. He has further argued that both the applications were dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 14.01.1998 after which the Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble High Court by filing Civil Revision Petition bearing No. CR.301/98 on 18.03.1999 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain but thereafter no further proceedings were preferred by the Respondent No.1 and therefore, the order dated 14.01.1998 attained finality.
(4) It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the LRs of Late Darshan Singh filed a suit for Declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jain the then Civil Judge, Delhi in suit under the title 'Didar Singh Versus Darshan Singh & Anr.' be declared as null and void and that the said decreed has been obtained by playing fraud and concealment of material facts and other reliefs including the relief of possession etc. was also prayed. He has pointed out that the said suit was filed in the court of Sh. Rajeev Mehra the then ADJ, Delhi who vide order dated 23.10.2007 rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and being hit by Section 11 C.P.C. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the predecessor in interest had initiated proceedings before Delhi High Court on which enquiry proceeding were initiated against Sh. Sanjeev Jain, the then Civil Judge, Delhi and his judgments were under scrutiny, by the Delhi Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 4 of 18 High Court and the enquiry report of the aforesaid enquiry proceedings was retained by the High Court.
(5) Ld. Counsel has argued that an order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by its very nature is not an order which can operate as resjudicata and Order VII Rule 13 CPC provides that in the event of a plaint being rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff can file a fresh Suit on the same cause of action and hence it would be without base or conviction to say that an order under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. can ever operate as resjudicata which order is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court. It is submitted that the nature of an order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC means that no suit has been filed and the same is lend credence by the provisions of Order VII Rule 13 CPC and hence it cannot be said that there was any adjudication on merits while passing the order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and therefore any findings given on merits in the order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are merely obiter and do not support the plea of resjuidcata either in favour of or against a party. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on the judgment in the case of Shankar Lal Vs. Hira Lal reported in AIR (87) 1950 Privy Council 80. (6) Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that the Respondent No.1 under the said order dated 23.10.2007 passed by Sh. Rajeev Mehra, filed an application under Section 11 CPC in the court of Sh. Raj Kumar the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi in proceedings where the earlier application of the Respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking same relief was Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 5 of 18 dismissed by Sh. M.C. Gupta the then Civil Judge Delhi on 14.01.1998, of which the Civil Revision No.301/1998 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. He has argued that the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by Sh. Rajeev Mehra the then ADJ, Delhi is a judgment incuriam and in proceedings before the said court, the judgment and decree passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jain the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi was assailed and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the said judgment and decree which had been challenged in the said suit, could be held as operating as resjuidcata in the same suit. It is argued that the proceedings before Sh. Rajeev Mehra, the then ADJ, Delhi the pleading in previous suit were not filed on record and therefore question of resjudicata could not even otherwise have been decided by the said court. In this regard Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance on the judgment in the case of A.M.K. Mariam Bibi & Ors. Vs. M.a. Abdul Rahim & Ors. reported in 2000 AIHC 661.
(7) It is also argued that since the plea of resjudicata had already been negatived by order dated 14.01.1998 passed by Sh. M.C. Gupta the then Ld. Civil Judge and the said order having been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.03.1999, the second application under Section 11 CPC which has been allowed by the Ld. Trial Court, being based on the same order passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jain the then Civil Judge, Delhi, is itself barred by resjudicata and therefore, could not have been filed much less allowed. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that in view of the fact that the plea of resjudicata had already been negatived by the Trial Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 6 of 18 Court vide order dated 14.01.1998 and the said order having been upheld, there was no reason or occasion before the Ld. Trial Court to have allowed the application under Section 11 CPC without there being any pleadings of the Respondent No.1 to that effect and since there were no pleading before the Trial Court on the question of resjudicata, there was no issue in the suit on the said aspect. He has pointed out that it is settled law that where issues have been framed on merits, the judgment has to follow on all issues and not on one more particularly having regard to the fact that in the present case there was no issue with regard to the plea of resjudicata. He has in this regard placed his reliance on the authority of Smt. Sairindi Sahu & Anr. Vs. Pitabas Mahara & Ors. reported in 1992 (1) CLT 345 and argued that issue relating to Resjudicata is not an issue of law and hence, cannot be treated as preliminary issue.
(8) On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the appellant has no respect in law and legal process since by way of the present suit, the appellant has tried to reagitate and reopen the issues which have already been put to rest by the Higher Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence under the given circumstances the present appeal filed against the order of the Ld. Trial Court is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the appellant is guilty of contempt since even after loosing two rounds of litigation till the Hon'ble Supreme Court the appellant is continuing to waste the precious time of the Court.
Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 7 of 18 (9) I have gone through the Trial Court Record, the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record. I have also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the authorities relied upon by them which are as under:
1. In re Chunduru Venkata Subrahmanyam reported in AIR 1955 ANDHRA 74.
2. Shankar Lal Vs. Hira Lal reported in AIR (87) 1950 Privy Council 80.
3. Smt. Sarojini Rath Vs. Bhaskar Rath reported in AIR 1977Orissa 42.
4. A.M.K. Mariam Bibi & Ors. Vs. M.a. Abdul Rahim & Ors.
reported in 2000 AIHC 661.
5. K. Laxminarasimha Chary Vs. K. Satyanarayana reported in 2002 AIHC 1478.
6. Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 9.
7. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 428.
(10) I have also gone through the orders passed by the various courts including the Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I may observe that the bare perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court would show that the various aspects so highlighted by the parties and the judgments cited before it had been elaborately dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court while arriving at the conclusion that the suit of the appellant (plaintiff Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 8 of 18 before the Ld. Trial Court) is barred by resjudicata and I quote the relevant paragraphs as under:
"....... There cannot be any deviation with respect to the preposition of law as laid down either by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or by the Hon'ble High Courts in the aforesaid authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as well as by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
The factual matrix of the present suit is that the plaintiff late Sh. Darshan Singh has claimed himself to be the absolute legal owner and allottee of the property no. F18 A & B (Block F), Moti Nagar, New Delhi by virtue of registered sale deed / deed of conveyance and Lease Deed dated 31.08.1962 executed by the President of India through Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India in his favour. It has been stated further that since the date of allotment and purchase of the property, the plaintiff alongwith his family members is in possession and enjoyment of the property in the capacity of the owner thereof. It has been stated further that defendant is the real younger brother of the plaintiff and after partition of India and at the time of allotment and purchase, the defendant was of tender age and the plaintiff's other brother was also of tender age. It has been stated further that the plaintiff looked after both the brothers and given fatherly care and brought up during their childhood. It has been stated further that the defendant was allowed to live in the property in question till he attains the age of majority. It has been stated further that at the time of allotment and purchase of the property, the father of plaintiff was not having any source of income while his brothers were of tender age. It has been stated further that father of the parties had sold his claim to the plaintiff. It has been stated further that the plaintiff was a government employee in Pakistan and in the month of August 1947, he was transferred from Lyallpur (Pakistan) to Delhi and after his migration, he alongwith his family members started residing in the Military Barracks at Anand Parbat, Delhi and after sometime he was allotted a house at Sidhipura and thereafter the present accommodation was allotted to the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the property in question was never partitioned by the plaintiff in any manner. It has been stated further that since the very beginning of the allotment and purchase of the Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 9 of 18 property in question, the property stood in the name of plaintiff in the house tax records and L & DO records. It has been stated further that after the marriage of defendant, the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant became strained and when defendant refused to vacate the property in question the present suit was filed.
In the Written Statement filed on record, the defendant has taken various preliminary objections such as the suit is barred by limitation. It has been stated further that during the life time of their father, the suit property was got divided / partitioned amongst the three brothers in equal shares and the plaintiff executed agreement to sell, SPA, affidavit and Will besides letters addressed to MCD and DESU for getting the separate portions so allotted to each brother, mutated in their respective names on 03.04.1963. It has been further alleged that since then all the three brothers have been residing in their respective separate portions so allotted to each of them, as owners thereof in family partition, although the documents were written of sale in order to get the separate portions assessed in house tax separately and effectively. It has been stated further that thereafter in 1982 the plaintiff raised objections against Sh. Didar Singh who filed a suit no. 592/82 for declaration and injunction sometime in the year 1982, wherein he has impleaded his father, sisters, U.O.I and the present replying defendant as parties. Thereafter the defendant has given various instances of various litigations in between the parties and it has been submitted that the defendant as well as his third brother are the coowners in respect of the suit property and they are residing in their respective portions in the capacity of owners.
It is not in dispute that similar was the factual matrix in the earlier suit titled as Didar Singh vs. Darshan Singh & Ors and that suit was decreed vide judgment dated 31.07.2001. It is also not in dispute that the first appellate court in RCA no. 12/2001 upheld the aforesaid order and thereafter Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also dismissed the second appeal bearing RSA No. 11/2003 on
08.12.2005. Thereafter the SLP against the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and same was the fate of review petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 20.07.2006.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the plea of principles of resjudicata cannot be taken by the defendant as the Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 10 of 18 same plea has already been taken by the defendant in the earlier application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC as well as in the application u/O 10 CPC and those applications were dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. It has been further argued that against those orders the defendant went in revision / appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the revision / appeal was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
I am of the opinion that so far as the aforesaid plea is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has rightly pointed out that the aforesaid plea has already been taken in the application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC as well as in the application u/O 10 CPC filed by the defendant and the said applications were dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor. The remedy of revision / appeal was also availed by the defendant and the same was also dismissed. As such, I am of the opinion that the plea on the basis of aforesaid judgment is not available to the defendant at this stage since the defendant has already availed the same and the defendant cannot be allowed to reagitate the same issue time and again but Ld. Counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention to the judgment passed by Sh. Rajiv Mehra, Ld. ADJ in suit no. 170/07 wherein an application filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 u/S 11 CPC r/w Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the plaint was rejected. The Memo of parties of the aforesaid suit reads as under :
Suit No. 170 of 2007
1. Shri Satpal Singh S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
2. Ms. Bhupinder Kaur D/o Late Sh. Darshan Both Residents of : Property Bearing No. F18AB, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Smt. Pritpal Kaur D/o Late Shri Darshan Singh W/o Shri Jarnail Singh, Resident of MIG Flat, Bearing No. 30A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
4. Smt. Bhajan Kaur D/o Late Shri Darshan Singh, W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Khattar, Resident of 16/25A, First Floor, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
.... Plaintiffs Versus Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 11 of 18
1. Shri Didar Singh S/o Late Sh. Sant Singh
2. Shri Surinder Singh S/o Late Shri Sant Singh Both Residents of : Property No. F18AB, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Shri Jaspal Singh S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh, Resident of : Property No. F18AB, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
... Defendants A careful perusal of the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by Sh. Rajiv Mehra, reveals the Hon'ble Court was pleased to held that the aforesaid suit was barred by resjudicata u/S 11 CPC. It has to be seen that in the case in hand as well, LRs of deceased plaintiff have already been brought on record. I am of the opinion that the parties in that suit bearing no. 170/2007 and the parties in the present suit are the same parties. The suit bearing no. 170/2007 was a suit for possession, damages / mesne profits for illegal use and occupation of the premises by defendant nos. 1 and 2 and for the relief of injunctions as well. The present suit is also for the relief of possession and damages. I am of the opinion that the issues involved in the present suit as well as in the suit no. 170/07 are exactly the same. It is not in dispute that against the orders dated 23.10.2007, the defendant had preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 02.12.2008 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Mr. Justice S.K. Mehra, of our own High Court, subject to cost of Rs. 50,000/. I am of the opinion that the aforesaid order dated 23.10.2007 passed in suit no. 170/07 by Sh. Rajiv Mehra, Ld. ADJ operate as resjudicata in the present suit and as such present suit is barred U/s. 11 CPC.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further drawn my attention to the orders dated 07.12.2007 passed by Sh. N.L. Lakra my Ld. Predecessor and it has been argued that vide those orders my Ld. Predecessor had allowed the application u/O 23 Rule 3 CPC and as such the defendant cannot be allowed to reagitate the same issue because in those orders it has been held by my Ld. Predecessor that the right to sue survives in favour of LRs of deceased plaintiff.
A careful perusal of the aforesaid orders, in my opinion, reveals that my Ld. Predecessor had merely allowed the application u/O 23 Rule 3 CPC but in the very same orders the matter was Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 12 of 18 fixed for arguments on the application u/S 11 CPC. As such, I am of the opinion that so far as the application u/S 11 CPC is concerned, the aforesaid orders do not have any bearing on that issue.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby allow the application filed by the defendant u/S 11 CPC and held that the present suit is barred u/S 11 CPC in view of the orders passed by Sh. Rajiv Mehra, Ld. ADJ on 23.10.2007 in suit no. 170/07......." (11) It is writ large that the Ld. Trial Court while deciding the issue of resjudicata has elaborately dealt with the previous litigations filed between the parties, the reliefs prayed for, the reliefs granted by the various courts and the orders passed therein, which litigations have not been disputed by the parties. The perusal of the judgments of the various courts confirm that there is no dispute in so far as the aspect of relationship between the parties is concerned. The following aspects emerge from the perusal of the Trial Court Record and the various documents placed before me:
➢ Late Sh. Sant Singh, father of Late Sh. Darshan Singh, Didar Singh and Surinder Singh was a displaced person from Pakistan and had left property in West Pakistan in lieu of which he was granted compensation by the Rehabilitation Department and Sh. Sant Singh was allotted the suit property bearing No. F18AB, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and Sh. Sant Singh had purchased other claims also and had paid the total consideration of the property.
➢ Sh. Sant Singh had taken the property for the benefit of all his three sons, although the Lease Deed/ Conveyance Deed was got executed by Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 13 of 18 him in the name of his elder son Sh. Darshan Singh as the other two sons were minors at that time. Thereafter a Family Settlement had taken place in the lifetime of Sh. Sant Singh and Sh. Darshan Singh had also executed documents including Agreement to Sell, Special Power of Attorney and Will in favour of the Respondent No.1 and Sh.
Didar Singh and as per the respondents all the three brothers during the lifetime of their father had by way of oral partition, partitioned the suit property and further got mutated their respective shares in the suit property.
➢ After a passage of twenty years of settlement, the father of the Appellant developed cheating intentions and he wanted to deprive the Respondent No.1 and Sh. Didar Singh of their share in the suit property.
➢ Father of the appellant Sh. Didar Singh filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief on 23.12.1981 against Sh. Darshan Singh and the Respondent No.1 which suit hotly contested by Late Sh. Darshan Singh and ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of Sh. Didar Singh vide judgment dated 31.07.2001 by the Court of Sh. Sanjiv Jain, then Civil Judge, Delhi, wherein it was held that the Respondent No.1 along with Sh. Didar Singh are entitled by way of Family Settlement to use the portion of the property in their possession in the same manner and with the same right and liabilities as Sh.
Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 14 of 18 Darshan Singh had got vide Lease Deed and Conveyance Deed dated 31.08.1962 and the relief of injunction was also granted in favour of Sh. Didar Singh and against Late Sh. Darshan Singh.
➢ The father of the appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 before the First Appellate Court in RCA No.12/2001 which appeal was dismissed on 24.12.2002 by Sh. S.N. Aggarwal, the then ADJ, Delhi and RSA preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing No. 11/2003 was dismissed on 08.12.2005.
➢ The Special Leave Petition bearing No. 5625/2006 was again dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.04.2006 and a Review Petition bearing No. 564/2006 in SLP (C) No. 2625/2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 20.07.2006. A Curative Petition filed by Late Sh. Darshan Singh was also dismissed on 25.09.2007.
➢ Father of the appellant in the meantime had in the year 1995 filed a suit for possession separately against the Respondent No.1 and Sh. Didar Singh which was pending trial and after the death of Sh. Darshan Singh his legal heirs, the appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded as plaintiffs in the said suits.
➢ After the death of their father Sh. Satpal Singh and others i.e. the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 got a legal notice served on the Respondent No.1 and Sh. Didar Singh for vacating the suit premises Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 15 of 18 and subsequently, filed a suit for declaration, possession, damages/ mesne profits against the Respondent No.1 and Sh. Didar Singh wherein it was prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge in the suit titled Didar Singh Vs. Darshan Singh and which was upheld till the Hon'ble Supreme Court, be declared as null and void and decree for possession, damages/ mesne profits be passed in their favour as against the Defendant No.1 and 2 i.e. Didar Singh and Sh. Surinder Singh i.e. Respondent No.1 whereas the the appellant was made a performa defendant in the said suit.
➢ The Respondent No.1 along with Sh. Didar Singh filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11 CPC which application was contested and ultimately was allowed by the Court of Sh. Rajiv Mehra, the then ADJ, Delhi on 23.10.2007 and the plaint was rejected. An appeal was filed against the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on 02.12.2008 by the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice J.R. Midha subject to the cost of Rs. 50,000/.
➢ The SLP filed against the said order dated 2.12.2008 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha was dismissed in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.9.2007. Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 16 of 18 ➢ The Respondent No.1 along with Sh. Didar Singh had also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing No. WP (C) No. 248/2010 against the L&DO wherein it was prayed that the names of Surinder Singh and Sh. Didar Singh be also mutated in the Lease Deed/ Conveyance Deed. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the Court of Hon'ble Justice Murlidhar on 14.03.2010 and in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the name of the Respondent No.1 and Shri Didar Singh have also been incorporated in the Lease Deed by the L&DO.
➢ It was pursuant to the orders dated 14.03.2010 and 23.05.2010 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murlidhar that the names of Surinder Singh and Sh. Didar Singh were incorporated in the Lease Deed by the L&DO and a Mutation Letter dated 7.4.2010 was issued by the L&DO.
(12) This being the background, I find no illegality in the order of the Ld. Trial Court warranting any interference holding that the suit of the appellant is barred under Section 11 CPC since the suit bearing No. 170/2007 was undisputedly between the same with the disputes relating to same subject matter and similar relief of possession, damages/ mesne profits for illegal use and and occupation and consequential relief of injunction and hence the issues being directly and substantially the same, which controversies had been finally put to rest after the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 17 of 18 Court. Earlier in the first round of litigation in Suit No. 592/1982 whose first appeal in RCA No. 12/2001 and second appeal in RSA No. 11/2003 were dismissed against which an SLP was filed and dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after which a Review petition was filed and dismissed thereafter.
(13) After two full rounds of litigations there has to be some sanctity and finality attached to the proceedings and the verdict of the Highest Court needs to be respected and honoured. I find no merits in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
(14) Appeal File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 16.4.2015 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh, RCA No. 70/13 Page No. 18 of 18