Gordhan & Anr vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2417 Del

R-21

           *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CRP No.16/2007 & CM No.1452/2007


                                                Date of decision : 05.05.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :

GORDHAN & ANR                                             ..... Petitioners
                              Through: Mr. Vikas Goyal, Adv.

                    versus


SMT. VIJAY LAXMI & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents
                              Through: Nemo.


         CORAM

*        HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

    1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may          No
       be allowed to see the Judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?         No

    3. Whether the judgment should be
       reported in the Digest?                        No


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners herein (defendants No.1 & 2 in the suit

proceedings) are aggrieved by an order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the

Commercial Civil Judge disposing of a preliminary issue with regard to the

maintainability of the suit and holding that the suit as instituted by the

respondents is maintainable in its present form and is not barred under the

provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short 'the

Act').

2. It is pertinent to note that in June 1998, a simplicitor suit for

injunction was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the

petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 and three others, seeking to restrain

them from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property described as

Khasra No.137, 64, 58, 61, 57, 42, 681 and 682 situated within the revenue

estate of Village Rajpur Khurd, Post Office Mehrauli, New Delhi.

3. In the plaint, the respondent No.1 (daughter-in-law of the

petitioner No.1/defendant No.1) and her minor child (grand-child of the

petitioner No.1/defendant No.1), averred that being the widow and minor

child of Sh.Inder Singh, the deceased son of the petitioner No.1/defendant

No.1, they are entitled to step into his shoes and receive a share in the

ancestral properties. Pleadings were completed in the suit, whereafter the

following preliminary issue was framed on 26.10.1999:-

"Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?"

4. After hearing the parties, the aforesaid preliminary issue was

decided by the court below by observing that the suit was maintainable and

was not barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.

5. Counsel for the petitioners states at the outset that he does not

wish to press the present petition, but his clients may be granted liberty to

approach the learned Commercial Civil Judge with a request to frame issues

with regard to the mis-joinder of parties and maintainability of the suit, on

other legal grounds as taken by the petitioners in their written statement,

excluding those already decided by the impugned order.

6. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is disposed of,

along with the pending application.

7. Considering the vintage of the present suit, which is a decade

old, and in view of the fact that the petitioners are senior citizens aged

above 80 years, the learned Commercial Civil Judge is requested to expedite

the hearing in the suit.

8. Though the respondents were duly represented through counsel

in the present proceedings, none has appeared on their behalf. It is

therefore directed that notice of appearance be issued to the other side,

before proceeding further in the suit.

9. List before the concerned court on 24th May, 2010 for further

proceedings.

                                                          (HIMA KOHLI)
MAY   05, 2010                                               JUDGE
sk