Delhi District Court
Devi Dass Khanna vs Bimla Rani & Ors on 4 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV SARVARIA, Ld. CIVIL JUDGE-14,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 201/15
Unique Case ID No. : 02401C0541002005
Devi Dass Khanna .... Plaintiff
versus
Bimla Rani & Ors. .... Defendants
Order on application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
1.Vide this Order, the application filed by defendants no. 3 and 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC shall be disposed of. In the application, defendants no. 3 and 4 have prayed for rejection of the plaint by stating that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff entered into a compromise with defendants no. 1 and 2 and in terms of decree dated 21.09.1993, the sale deed was ordered to be executed in terms of prayer (b) of the plaint. It is stated that the only relief left in the suit is related to declaration that the sale deeds dated 25.03.1983 and 30.03.1983 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 3 and 4 are null and void and not binding upon plaintiffs and do not defeat the rights of the plaintiffs under the agreement to sell dated 25.01.1982. It is stated in the application that a sale deed executed by an intending seller under an agreement to sell to a third party is not null and void and no such declaration as claimed in relief (a) of the plaint can be granted and the same is barred by law.
2. In reply to the application, it is stated that in pursuance of compromise between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1, decree was passed on 21.09.1993 Suit No. 201/15 Devi Dass Khanna v. Bimla Rani & Ors. 1 of 3 and the same was acted upon and sale deed dated 30.09.1993 was executed in favour of plaintiffs and now the suit is pending for relief of prayer (a). It is further stated in the reply that defendants no. 3 and 4 had moved an application under Section 151, 152 and 153 of CPC seeking rectification of order dated 21.09.1993 which was dismissed on 08.04.2010. Thereafter, defendants no. 3 and 4 preferred a review application seeking review of order dated 08.04.2010 and vide order dated 22.04.2015, the Court partially allowed the application by stating that the observation that the sale deed dated 30.09.1993 do not include the portion of property which was sold to defendants no. 3 and 4 is a wrong observation. However, it further stated that the order dated 08.04.2010 is a well reasoned order and no error apparent on the face of the record was found to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 47 of CPC. It is further stated in the reply that defendants no. 3 and 4 cannot be allowed to raise the plea of the maintainability of the suit at this stage.
3. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
4. Admittedly, compromise between plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 had arrived on the basis of which decree was passed on 21.09.1993. It is noted that the Court had specifically observed on 21.09.1993 that the suit will continue qua the defendants no. 3 and 4. Defendants no. 3 and 4 were appearing in the matter since the beginning and they never took any objection to the said order for many years. Thereafter, the application filed by defendants no. 3 and 4 under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of CPC seeking modification of order dated 21.09.1983 was dismissed on 08.04.2010 and a review of that order was also declined vide order dated 22.04.2015. By moving the present application, what defendants no. 3 and 4/ applicants are trying to do is to again seek review of the order dated 21.09.1993 which has already been declined on Suit No. 201/15 Devi Dass Khanna v. Bimla Rani & Ors. 2 of 3 08.04.2010 and 22.04.2015. Ld. Advocate for defendants no. 3 and 4 relied upon decision in Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand, AIR 1954 SC 75 in support of his contention. It is well settled that for considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the contents of the plaint need to be looked into. From the reading of the plaint, the Court does not find any reason to reject the plaint. The contention of the Ld. Advocate for defendants no. 3 and 4 placing reliance on Lala Durga Prasad's case will be looked into at the stage of final disposal of the suit. The same cannot be ground for allowing the present application. The application is dismissed.
(Apoorv Sarvaria)
Civil Judge-14 entral/Delhi
04.01.2016
Suit No. 201/15
Devi Dass Khanna v. Bimla Rani & Ors. 3 of 3