Mohinder Singh vs Rashmi Jain & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1747 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 14.03.2012.

+     C.R.P. 199/2010 & CM No.22836/2010


MOHINDER SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                            Through    Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate
                                       with Mr. Rajesh, Advocate.

                   versus


RASHMI JAIN & ORS                                  ..... Respondents
                            Through    Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned judgment dated 19.08.2010 had allowed the

applications filed by the applicant Rashmi Jain under Order XXII Rule

9, under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as the „Code‟) read with another application under Section 5

of the Limitation Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by this finding.

2 Record shows that the original plaintiff Raj Pal Singh had filed a

suit for possession and permanent injunction. Written statement was

filed. The plaintiff died on 29.01.2008. The suit stood abated on

28.04.2008. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed

by the applicant Rashmi Jain seeking impleadment; this application was

dismissed on 07.01.2009; the Court was of the view that since the suit

stood abated and there was no pending suit, this application was not

maintainable. On 27.01.2009, the present applications i.e. the

application under Order XXII Rules 9 & 10 of the Code read with under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act were filed by the applicant seeking

impleadment; her contention was that she had purchased this property

by requisite documents of transfer i.e. a registered sale deed from one

Raghuvir Singh who in turn was successor in interest of the original

plaintiff Raj Pal Singh; Raj Pal Singh having bequeathed this suit

property in favour of Raghuvir Singh vide a Will dated 14.10.2007. All

the aforenoted documents are on record. No challenge has been made to

these documents.

3 Order XXII Rule 9 (2) of the Code permits an assignee of the

plaintiff to apply to the Court to get the order of abatement of the suit to

be set aside; sub Rule (3) specifies that the provisions of Section 5 of the

Limitation Act are applicable. The vehement contention of the petitioner

is that the present applicant Rashmi Jain is not an assignee of the

plaintiff Raj Pal Singh; the assignee was Raghuvir Singh and she is

claiming her title only through Raghuvir Singh and this not being a valid

assignment, the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code would not

apply.

4 This Court is not in agreement with this submission. The

definition of assignee is wide enough to include the present applicant;

she is claiming her title to the original plaintiff Raj Pal through the

intervener Raghuvir Singh; she had valid documents i.e. a registered sale

deed to support her claim of assignment. An "Assignee" has been

decreed as a person to whom a right or liability is legally transferred or a

person appointed to act for another.

5 The impugned judgment had noted the legal position as also the

facts in the correct perspective. It had rightly drawn a conclusion that

there was a sufficient cause on the part of the applicant in not moving

the application within the stipulated period; a liberal interpretation to the

law of limitation has been time and again reiterated by the Courts and

unless there are malafides imputed to an applying party, this procedural

impairment should not come in the way of a substantive relief. The

applicant has specifically averred that she was not aware about the

pendency of the suit; she had purchased this property from Raghuvir

Singh who had also not informed her about this litigation; this was the

reason for the delay in moving the said application; the discretion

exercised by the trial Court in favour of the applicant holding that there

was a "sufficient cause" for not filing the application under Order XXII

Rule 9 of the Code within the stipulated period was a fair discretion; it

suffers from no infirmity; no interference is called for on this count.

6 The impugned judgment on no count suffers from any infirmity.

Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 14, 2012 A