Delhi District Court
Mithan Lal vs Nand Rani (D) Through Lrs on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR, LD. DISTRICT
JUDGE - 05, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
RCA No. 140/17
CNR No. DLSE01-008930-2017
In the matter of :-
Shri Mithan Lal(deceased),
Through his legal heirs:
a) Narayan Prasad, s/o Late Mithan Lal
b) Bhagwan Dass s/o Late Mithan Lal
c) Tara Chand s/o Late Mithan Lal
All R/o 541, Sunlight Colony-II,
Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi
d) Smt. Kanta Devi D/o Late Mithan Lal
W/o Shri Hira Lal,
R/o A-836, Mahawar Nagar
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi -110003.
e) Smt. Lalli Devi, D/o Late Mithan Lal,
W/o Late Nathu Ram
R/o 536, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi ....Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Nand Rani (decased)
Through her LRs:-
i) Shri Chhote Lal,
ii) Shri Puran Chand
iii) Shri Ram Chander
All sons of Smt. Nand Rani
RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 1/17 Dated 29.11.2025
Digitally signed
PRABH by PRABH
DEEP KAUR
DEEP 2025.11.29
Date:
KAUR 17:10:14
+0530
iv) Shri Sanjay
v) Shri Ramesh
vi) Shri Anil
vii) Smt. Poonam
All sons and daughter of Late Sant Ram,
S/o Late Smt. Nand Rani
viii) Shri Ajay
ix) Shri Amit
x) Shri Parveen
xi) Smt. Kamla
All sons of widow of Late Ram Nath
xii) Smt. Shanti
xiii) Smt. Geeta
xiv) Smt. Urmila
All daughters of Smt. Nand Rani,
C/o Shri Chhote Lal
All residents of H.No. 542,
Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar,
Ashram, New Delhi.
2. Shri Mittu Swamy,
S/o Shri Nachi Mithu,
R/o H.No. 543,
Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar,
Ashram, New Delhi ....Respondents/Defendants
Date of institution of the appeal : 29.11.2017
Date of arguments : 22.11.2025
Date of decision : 29.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal under Order 96 CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff assails the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 in CS no.8607/2016 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-04, West District, Tis Hazari PRABH DEEP RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 2/17 Dated 29.11.2025 KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:21 +0530 Courts, Delhi. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred by their original status.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Admittedly, plaintiff is allottee of plot no.541, Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar Ashram, Delhi whereas plot no. 542 was allotted to one Shri Nania s/o Sh. Ganesh and plot no. 543 was allotted to Shri Kum Ram s/o Sh. Kundan by the DDA upon which parties constructed their respective houses. There is a common gali/passage on the back side of the houses of the parties provided by DDA in the year 1989.
As per plaintiff, in the year 1988-89 the defendant no. 1 constructed a chajja on the first floor of her house no. 542 on the common passage on the backside of her house and further wanted to encroach upon the common passage meant for common use of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, plaintiff filed suit bearing no. 206/1989 for permanent injunction wherein defendant no. 1 was temporarily restrained from making any construction in the suit property.
Admittedly, thereafter, defendant no. 1 also filed the suit bearing no. 736/1989 for permanent injunction against plaintiff and defendant no.
2. Admittedly, the suit of the plaintiff i.e. suit no. 206/1989 was dismissed as plaintiff did not pursue the matter and suit of defendant no. 1 was decreed vide Ex-parte Decree dated 02.02.1995.
As per plaintiff, during pendency of the previous suit, plaintiff and defendants compromised out of Court in 1992 and agreed to withdraw their respective suits. Therefore, plaintiff did not pursue his case, however, defendant no. 1 did not withdraw her suit and suit was decreed PRABH ex-parte vide judgment dated 02.02.1995 against plaintiff and defendant DEEP RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 3/17 Dated 29.11.2025 KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:25 +0530 no. 2. The plaintiff came to know about the said ex-parte judgment in another suit bearing no. 64/1998 filed by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff and his son. Thereafter defendant no. 1 filed an application under order XXI Rule 32 CPC. The defendant no. 1 in her suit no. 736/1989 alleged that the plaintiff had broken the wall towards the chajja of defendant no. 1 and wanted to install a door in the said wall. As per plaintiff, in the suit filed by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff, plaintiff as a defendant in that suit had stated in the written statement twice i.e. in para 5 of preliminary objections and para 3 of merits in the written statement, that the door towards the chajja was already fixed before filing of the suit by defendant no. 1. As per plaintiff, this fact was not controverted by the defendant no. 1 in corresponding paras of her replication. Thus, clearly the door was already in existence and the same was not installed in 1998 as falsely alleged by the defendant no. 1 in her application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. Thus the plaintiff did not disobey the decree dated 02.02.1995 which was obtained by the decree- holder by playing fraud. Therefore, suit has been filed for declaration that ex-parte decree dated 02.02.1995 is null and void.
3. LRs no. (I), (II) and (III) of deceased defendant no. 1 contested the suit and filed detailed joint written statement taking preliminary objection to the effect that no site plan has been filed in order to know the exact position of the properties. Defendants have categorically denied all the averments of plaint and have prayed for its dismissal.
4. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 17.05.2004:
Issues PRABH RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 4/17 Dated 29.11.2025 DEEP KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:30 +0530
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP Additional Issue was framed on 17.03.2017;
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?OPD.
5. After recording of the evidence, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the case of the plaintiff and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed the present appeal.
6. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:-
A) Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in judicious manner. B) Because the Learned Trial Court has not deal with the matter sympathetically and has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on record.
C) Because the Learned Trial Court has not deal with the matter with the spirit of imparting justice.
D) Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the Respondent/ defendant No.1 had falsely alleged herself to be the owner of the Plot whereas the said plot was not allotted to her and she is neither owner/nor allottee or licensee thereof. She has no right, title or interest over the said plot. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the said plot cannot be transferred to any other person and the defendant/Respondent is illegally occupying the said plot and she has no possessory rights over the said plot. The Respondent concealed the said fact from the Hon'ble Court and misguide the plot that she is owner of the PRABH plot. DEEP KAUR RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 5/17 Dated 29.11.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date:
2025.11.29 17:10:34 +0530 E) Because the Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that the defendant No.1 had raised the illegal construction without the sanctioned plan from DDA or MCD beyond the size of plot and extended illegal chhajja unauthorizedly over the common space/passage left for the common use for going to common latrine and bath in the back side of the plot of House No. 541-542 & 543 of Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. The defendant No.l has concealed the said fact from the Hon'ble Court who passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the defendant No.1.
F) Because the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that the defendant in the said suit (i.e. present plaintiff/ appellant) in his written statement had brought the fact in the knowledge of the court that door is existing towards the chhajja and the defendant herein has not denied the said fact in the corresponding para of the replication which proves that the defendant was already in existence.
G) Because the Learned Trial court has not appreciated the written statement filed by the DDA wherein the DDA has admitted that the defendant has raised the illegal construction on the passage. H) Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that there is common space/passage of about 4' x 4' for all the allottees of plot No.541, 542 & 543 of Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and the defendant No.1 has no exclusive right to use the said space and defendant No.l in violation and without any right has raised the chhajja over the said space.. The defendant has also concealed the said fact in her suit.
I) Because the Learned trial court has not appreciated the attested copies PRABH DEEP RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 6/17 Dated 29.11.2025 KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:38 +0530 of site plan Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8 in respect of plot No.541, 542 and 543, Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi filed by the officials of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board the successor of Slum & JJ Deptt. of DDA which allotted the said plot and the defendant knowingly has not brought the said fact before the court in her suit and obtained ex- parte decree against the plaintiff/appellant. J) Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that why the said plot No.542 is existing in the name of Naina, the allottee, if the defendant had purchased the said plot as per law why the said plot has not been mutated in the name of Nand Rani and after her death in favour of her LRs.
K) Because the Learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that the appellant is an illiterate person and could not know the complication of law as a simplicitor man and he mutually decided with the defendant to stop going to their case and did not go in his case and in his absence the defendant succeed to misguide the Hon'ble Court and obtained the decree by misguiding the Hon'ble Court.
L) Because the Learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that the appellant has right to use the common passage left for going to common latrine and bath on the back side of the plot and defendant/ Respondent had illegal raised the construction by extending illegal/ unauthorized Chhajja on the said space whereby breach her right to passage and air and light.
M) Because the Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the defendant has mis-stated the facts and concealed the true facts from the PRABH DEEP court which passed the decree in her favour and against the KAUR RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 7/17 Dated 29.11.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:42 +0530 plaintiff/appellant and the decree has been obtained by the Respondent No.1 by misstating the fact and concealing the facts. N) Because the learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is within time after coming to know the judgment and decree dated 02.02.1995 in the year 1998 and the decree obtained by concealing the true facts and misguiding the Hon 'ble Court has been challenged after coming to knowledge of the said judgment and decree.
O) Because the learned trial court has not appreciated the law applicable to present case.
7. Notice of the present appeal was served upon the respondents and they filed detailed reply. It was stated that appellant filed the civil suit taking the lame excuse of knowledge in February 1998. Further, the respondents admitted filing of previous suit by plaintiff against defendant and another suit filed by defendant against plaintiff. It has been further stated that in the previous suit, DDA was impleaded as defendant and in its WS, DDA mentioned that K. Nachi Muttu Swami father of Muttu Swami was the unauthorized occupant in H.No. 543 and also stated in para no. 2 that there is 4 feet passage at the back side of the plot was left over by defendant no. 6(DDA) for common use of passer by the residents, but DDA did not clarify that the aforesaid 4 fit passage was left over by DDA for common use on ground floor only to pass away in the street by passer by and resident of colony. The DDA (defendant no. 6) never said in his written statement that the passage has been left over either on the first floor towards the constructed chajja of the deceased defendant no. 1 which is already in use and occupations of the deceased PRABH DEEP RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 8/17 Dated 29.11.2025 KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:47 +0530 defendant no. 1 more than last 10 years and it is also submitted by DDA never said in his WS that the appellant has been permitted to install a door towards of the chajja of the deceased defendant no. 1 for the common use of passer by and residents.
Respondent also denied arriving of any compromise and alleged the concealment of facts by the plaintiff. It has also been argued that Ld. Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has passed legally sound judgment. It has been further stated that respondents have never admitted at any point of time that plaintiff had already fixed the door opening towards chhajja of first floor. Further, the averments made in the original suit were reiterated during arguments.
8. The Trial Court records was summoned and perused.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
10. Admittedly, plaintiff filed previous suit for permanent injunction for raising any construction in the passage left by DDA for the use of occupant of flats no. 541, 542 and 543, Sun Light Colony -2, New Delhi. In the said suit, interim relief was granted and defendant was restrained from raising any construction in the passage left by DDA as mentioned above.
Thereafter, defendant no. 1 filed another suit against plaintiff and defendant no. 2 seeking the relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining plaintiff herein and defendant no. 2 herein from putting /installing doors towards the side of chhajja of plaintiff marked in yellow colour in the site plan and also from interfering in possession of PRABH defendant no. 1. DEEP KAUR RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 9/17 Dated 29.11.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:51 +0530
11. Clearly, in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff, the dispute was not with respect to use of the door by the plaintiff at the first floor. This dispute was raised by defendant no. 1 in the suit filed by her against plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
12. Plaintiff has vehemently argued that in the suit filed by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff, plaintiff herein who was defendant no. 1 in that suit has stated in the WS that the door at the first floor was already in existence and in the replication defendant no. 1 has admitted that the door at the first floor was already in existence and was being used by the plaintiff herein.
Perusal of pleadings of the suit filed by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW-2/1 to Ex. PW-2/3 shows that defendant no. 1 has nowhere admitted the existence of door at the first floor being used by the plaintiff as vehemently asserted by the plaintiff. Rather defendant no. 1 in her suit has alleged that plaintiff herein has broken the wall towards the chhajja of defendant no. 1 and he wants to install a door in the said wall. Thereafter, after obtaining decree in her suit no. 736/89, defendant no. 1 filed an application u/o 21 Rule 32 CPC and asserted that plaintiff herein had installed the door in 1998 in violation of the decree passed against the plaintiff herein.
13. Now the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his averments that the door towards the chhajja was already fixed before filing of the suit by defendant no. 1 and the same was not installed in 1998 as alleged by defendant no. 1 in her application u/o 21 Rule 32 CPC as mentioned above. The court is not required to consider whether plaintiff has installed the door after filing of the suit by defendant no. 1 because PRABH DEEP RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 10/17 Dated 29.11.2025 KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:10:56 +0530 plaintiff has nowhere taken the plea that he installed the door in pursuant to the settlement with defendant no.1, rather the plea of the plaintiff is that the door was already in existence when defendant no.1 filed the suit against plaintiff in 1989.
Perusal of record shows that plaintiff has not led any evidence to support his averments that the door was already in existence at the time of filing of suit no. 736/89 by defendant no. 1. Further, plaintiff cannot take benefit of the admissions, if any, made by the defendant no. 1 in suit no. 736/89 because in the said suit, Court has already passed an ex-parte decree in favour of defendant no. 1 and it implies that the averments of defendant no. 1 have been taken as proved and the averments of plaintiff herein have taken as disproved. In absence of any positive evidence, led by plaintiff to prove his averments that the door was already installed in the said wall at the time of filing of the suit no. 736/89 by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff, Court is bound to conclude that plaintiff has failed to prove the basic foundation of his case.
14. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. l obtained one judgment/decree in the civil suit no.736/89 by fraud by entering into an agreement whereby both parties agreed that they shall withdraw their respective suits filed against each other. The plaintiff did not pursue his case but the defendant no.1 pursued her case and obtained the exparte decree in question.
Admittedly, the agreement has not been reduced in writing and it was an oral agreement. The burden of proof to prove the settlement agreement by other means is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not PRABH disclosed the date, month or year of the agreement during the pleadings DEEP KAUR RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 11/17 Dated 29.11.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:00 +0530 or evidence nor plaintiff has disclosed the name of witnesses in whose presence the agreement was arrived at nor the place of the agreement.
The plaintiff, being party and witness to the agreement, was the best person to prove the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, plaintiff has not examined himself as a witness. The son of the plaintiff has entered into witness box as PW-1 and he deposed during cross examination that:
I have knowledge that Nand Rani had filed a suit against plaintiff and one Muthuu Swami but I do not know in which year the same was filed. I do not remember as to how many times my father appeared before the court in connection with the above suit.........I have never appeared in the above case alongwith my father. Vol. I had appeared several times in the said case individually. I do not know whether my father had filed WS in the above case on 23.11.89. I do not know whether the defendant had filed replication in the above case on 28.02.1990. My father came to know about the decision of the above case in the year 1998. Neither me nor my father came to know about the actual date of decision of the above suit. My father attended the above suit to the best of my knowledge till 1994/1995 and thereafter did not attend the hearing of the same. The above suit was regarding a dispute of a passage on the back side of the house of the present plaintiffs............... It is correct that my father was alloted a vacant plot. I do not remember as to when my father raised construction over the same. I have not placed on record any document regarding the construction by my father. It is natural that my father constructed and installed the door towards the chajja of the defendant after raising the construction over the plot alloted to him. It is correct that my mother had not obtained any permission from any department to and install the door towards the chajja of defendant. I remember that after a decree was passed in the previous suit the present defendant had accompanied a court bailiff for the purpose or closing the above door.......... It is wrong to suggest that present suit is time barred. It is correct that the defendant has constructed chajja in the year 1988-89. I have no knowledge whether my father had filed a suit against Nand Rani and Muthuu Swami. It is correct that my father had filed PRABH DEEP KAUR RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 12/17 Dated 29.11.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:06 +0530 a suit against Chottey Lal in the year 1989. It was regarding the attempt made by Chottey Lal to close the door towards the chajja of defendant at first floor. I do not know anything else about the said suit. The said suit continued for 2-3 years and later ended in a compromise which was effected out of the court. It was an oral promise and not reduced into writing My father had not filed any other suit against Nand Rani.......
Thus, Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that "the sole evidence regarding the existence of such agreement is the testimony of PW1. However, PWI has failed to answer certain material questions in his cross-examination. He did not even knew that whether his father I.e plaintiff had filed a suit against Nand Rani and Muthu Swami. He admitted that his father had filed a suit against Chhote Lal in the year 1989 and the suit was regarding the attempt made by Chhote Lal to close the door towards the chhaja of defendant at first floor. However, he did not know anything else about the said suit. Thus the evidence of PWl is on very weak footing and is not sufficient to discharge the burden of the plaintiff."
15. Further, during appeal, plaintiff has raised the issue that from the circumstances, Court can conclude that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 entered into settlement and plaintiff kept using the door and they agreed to withdraw their cases respectively and therefore, plaintiff had not pursued his case while defendant obtained ex-parte decree fraudulently.
As far as this contention is concerned, admittedly plaintiff had not appeared in the Court nor made any statement before the Court for withdrawal of the suit on the basis of any such settlement agreement. Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that "Even the circumstantial evidence is not in favour of plaintiff. It is to be noted that as per the pleadings of the plaintiff the parties compromised out of the court in 1992 and "agreed to withdraw their respective suits" (emphasis by court). However, it is not the case of the plaintiff that PRABH he appeared in his case and made a statement before the court withdrawing the suit DEEP KAUR RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 13/17 Dated 29.11.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:12 +0530 on the basis of such agreement. He has merely pleaded that after the said compromise he did not pursue his case. Thus the claim of plaintiff does not find any corroboration from his conduct as he did not acted strictly as per the terms of the alleged agreement. Moreso, he did not acted as a bonafide litigant because a party filing a case has a duty to inform the court regarding settlement, if any, but he merely abandoned the suit. Secondly, there is no evidence on behalf of plaintiff to show that the defendant no.1 acted otherwise regarding her claim in the previous suit after the alleged agreement. There is no evidence to show that the defendant no.1 had given up her claim over the chhaja or had allowed the plaintiff to have unrestricted access to the chhaja at first floor after 1992 i.e the year when alleged agreement was arrived at. Thirdly, in the previous case, the decree which of is under challenge, the plaintiff was a defendant alongwith Muthu Swami. However, said Muthu Swami has not filed any case against the defendant no.1 alleging such fraud. Even in the present case the plaintiff instead of citing him as a plaintiff witness has made him a proforma defendant. Thus the said fact also goes against the case of the plaintiff".
16. During the appeal, plaintiff has raised the question of ownership of the defendant no. 1 over the plot no. 542 and has also raised the question over the construction of chhajja at the first floor outside the common passage stating that defendant no. 1 has raised the chhajja covering the common passage kept for common use of plaintiff and other allottee of H.No. 542 and 543.
As far as the question of ownership is concerned, the plaintiff has neither raised the question of ownership in the previous suit nor in the suit filed before the Ld. Trial Court. Moreover, in the simplicitor of injunction, plaintiff cannot dispute the ownership of defendant. Therefore, the objections raised over the ownership of the defendant no. 1 are liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
Further, as far as the objections over the construction of the chhajja PRABH DEEP RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 14/17 Dated 29.11.2025 KAUR Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:17 +0530 are concerned, admittedly plaintiff filed the previous suit to stop the defendant from raising any construction over the common space and even the interim relief was granted to the plaintiff but later on plaintiff had abandoned his case in the name of settlement, therefore, now plaintiff cannot raise the question over construction of the chhajja by the defendant.
17. Further, the plaintiff has raised objections with respect to the written statement filed by DDA, the common passage shown in the site plan filed by officials of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board.
As far as these objections are concerned, plaintiff has not led any evidence before the Trial Court to prove that DDA had filed written statement in which it had reported that defendant no. 1 has raised illegal construction on the passage. As far as site plan is concerned, site plan only mentions about the common passage but it does not prove the case of plaintiff because admittedly plaintiff filed the previous suit on the allegations that defendant no. 1 was trying to construct the chhajja and thereafter, plaintiff failed to pursue the suit and therefore, by virtue of law of Estoppel now plaintiff cannot raise the issue of construction of chhajja by the defendant no.1.
Further, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that during cross examination, DW-1 admitted that at present door is open on ground, second and third floor, therefore, the door at first floor is also in existence earlier. As far as this plea is concerned, admittedly at the time of filing of previous suits by both parties, the construction at first floor was disputed PRABH by both of them and defendant has disputed the door at first floor even in DEEP 1989. Therefore, merely because remaining floors have been constructed KAUR Digitally signed RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 15/17 Dated 29.11.2025 by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:21 +0530 having any door does not mean that plaintiff can have any right to use the door at first floor.
18. Further, on the issue of limitation, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly decided the issue as the decree obtained by fraud can be challenged at any point of time and there is no limitation upon the same. Plaintiff has relied upon following judgments: "Kamal Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.", RSA No. 328 of 2017 decided on 29.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana; S.P. Chengalvaraya (D) Vs. Jaganath(D)", CA No. 994/72 deced on 27.10.1993; "A.V. Papayya Sastry And Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. And Ors ", Civil Appeal nos. 5097-99 of 2004 decided on 07.03.2007;
Arguments heard. Record perused.
As per plaintiff, the fraud has been done by the defendant by proceedings his case after promising the plaintiff to withdraw her suit. Admittedly, plaintiff had knowledge about the suit, court date etc. The Court is in agreement with the reasoning given by Ld. Trial Court that "Admittedly, the plaintiff was having knowledge about the suit, the court date etc. Therefore, the plaintiff by exercising reasonable diligence could have appeared before the court on the date fixed in the suit or could have asked his counsel to verify the withdrawal of the suit. However, plaintiff failed to exercise such diligence from 1992 till 1995 i.e when the decree was passed. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot claim that the limitation shall start after he got the knowledge of execution proceedings in 1998 because he himself failed to exercise reasonable diligence. The limitation starts from the date of decree itself i.e 02.02.1995. However, the suit was filed on 16.11.2000 and not within 3 years from 02.02.1995. Therefore, the suit is barred by Limitation and the issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff". PRABH As far as the judgments relied by the plaintiff are concerned, they DEEP KAUR Digitally signed RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 16/17 Dated 29.11.2025 by PRABH DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:26 +0530 are not applicable to the facts in hand.
CONCLUSION
19. In view of abovesaid reasons, it is hereby held that Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material placed on record. The Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the reasoning given vide judgment dated 16.10.2017. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2017 is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 16.10.2017 passed by Ld. Trial court is hereby affirmed.
Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith trial court record.
All the pending interim applications stand dismissed being not pressed upon. File of the present appeal be consigned to record room after due compliance. PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.11.29 KAUR 17:11:30 +0530 Typed to the dictation directly (Prabh Deep Kaur) Corrected and announced Ld. District Judge-05 in the open court on this day South East/Saket Courts 29.11.2025 New Delhi RCA No. 140/2017 Page No. 17/17 Dated 29.11.2025