Smt. Seema Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6060 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CS(OS) No. 100/2010
%                                                    19th August, 2015

SMT. SEEMA THAKUR                                          ..... Plaintiff

                          Through:       Mr. Viraj R. Datar and Mr. Chetan
                                         Lokur, Advocates.

                          versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                ..... Defendants

                          Through:       Mr. Vibhor Bagga and Ms. Radhika
                                         Gupta, Adv. for applicant

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?         Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

I.A.No. 3453/2014 (Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by defendant no.6)

1.

This is an application moved by the defendant no.6 in the suit,

one Sh. Raj Kumar Bhatara. Defendant no.6/applicant was not an original

party to the suit but he was added as defendant no.6 in the suit vide Order

dated 22.5.2013 of a Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS) No. 42/2013.

It may be noted that the suit was originally dismissed for non-prosecution

and by the Order dated 22.5.2013 the suit was restored and by the same

order the applicant/defendant no.6 was made as a party to the suit on the

ground that defendant no.6/applicant claims to be a bona fide purchaser for

value of the suit property. The suit property is the property bearing

no.18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi having an area of 86.7 sq. yds.

2. In the subject suit originally there were a total of five

defendants. Defendant no.1 is the Union of India. Defendant no.2 is the

Land and Development Office of the Union of India. Defendant no.3 is one

Sh. Gopi Chand. Defendant no.4 is one Smt. Sunita Wadhwa, Defendant

no.5 is Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Defendant no. 6 is Raj Kumar

Bhatara, the applicant. Defendant nos. 3, 4 and 6 represent the same interest

inasmuch as defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand is said to have purchased the

suit property from the plaintiff and thereafter sold the same to defendant

no.4, Smt. Sunita Wadhwa and who thereafter further sold the same to the

applicant/defendant no.6.

3. I may note that the subject suit is filed by the plaintiff, Smt.

Seema Thakur not under her own signatures but the suit is filed through her

attorney one Sh. Vijay Kapoor. Smt. Seema Thakur is stated to be settled

abroad in the USA.

4. In the suit the plaintiff by virtue of various reliefs effectively

wants declaration of her ownership with respect to the suit property and also

possession thereof by evicting defendant nos.3, 4 and 6. The prayer clauses

of the suit read as under:-

"1. the decree for declaring that the Agreement to Sale, General power of attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Receipts/Affidavits and all the other documents alleged executed by the plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 31.5.2004 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

2. the decree for declaring that the Conveyance deed dated 20.12.2004 executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of the Defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

3. the decree for declaring that the conversion of the suit property from lease hold to free hold done by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of the Defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

4. the decree for declaring that the Mutation Order dated 31.3.2005 (bearing No.Tax/KBZ/2004-05) with respect to the suit property allowed by MCD at the instance and in favour of the Defendant No.3 and all the subsequent mutations with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

5. the decree for declaring that the Sale deed dated 22.5.2006 with respect to the suit property executed by Defendant No.3 in favour the Defendant No.4 and all the subsequent sale deeds, if any, with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

6. the decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and a decree of eviction against the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any other person/entity claiming through Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi),

7. the decree of mesne profits of Rs. 7,50,000/- till the date of institution of the present suit,

8. the decree of mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month for future and pendente-lite mesne profits against Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any other person/entity claiming through Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi),

9. decree for interest @ 8% to be calculated from the date of the institution of the present suit on the aforesaid amounts to be recovered,

10. decree for awarding cost of the Suit,

11. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

5. A reading of the prayer clauses shows that the plaintiff, Smt.

Seema Thakur through her attorney, Sh. Vijay Kapoor disputes the fact that

the suit property was ever sold by her to defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand ,

much less through the documentation dated 31.5.2004. Acting pursuant to

the documentation dated 31.5.2004, the defendant nos. 1 and 2/Union of

India and the Land and Development Office have executed a Conveyance

Deed dated 20.12.2004 and converted the property from leasehold to

freehold in the name of defendant no.3.

6. The case of the applicant/defendant no.6 in the present

application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(CPC) for dismissing the suit on admissions of the plaintiff can be said to

fall into two parts. One part is based upon observations which are made by a

court of Metropolitan Magistrate regarding the factum that the

plaintiff's/Seema Thakur's case is that she admits sale of the suit property to

Sh. Gopi Chand/defendant no.3. The observations of the Metropolitan

Magistrate are in a criminal complaint filed by the defendant no.3 against the

plaintiff. The second part of the application is based upon judicial

admissions made by the plaintiff through her attorney, Sh. Vijay Kapoor

who has filed this suit and who was also an attorney of the plaintiff in earlier

civil suit proceedings and which judicial admissions are made in the

pleadings of the plaintiff through her attorney, Sh. Vijay Kapoor showing

that it is admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was in fact sold by

her to defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand. It may be noted that once there exists

a valid sale of the suit property by the plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur to the

defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand, there is no dispute further that Sh. Gopi

Chand thereafter has not sold the property to defendant no.4, Smt. Sunita

Wadhwa and who has sold the suit property further to the present defendant

no.6/applicant. Essentially, therefore, this Court has to examine whether

there are such categorical judicial admissions whereby the suit should be

decreed i.e dismissed (decree includes dismissal of a suit) under Order XII

Rule 6 CPC. Order XII Rule 6 CPC reads as under:-

"Order XII Rule 6. Judgment on admissions-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or if its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."

7. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the court has

discretion depending upon the facts of a case whether or not to decree the

suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. If the admissions are such that further trial

is not necessary, a court is entitled to pass a decree without requiring further

trial. The principles with respect to Order XII Rule 6 CPC have been stated

by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal &

Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120. The relevant

paragraphs of this judgment are paras 12, 15 and 17 and which read as

under:-

"12. As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said

rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.

xxxxx

xxxxx

15. Even without referring to the expression 'otherwise' in Rule 6 of Order XII CPC, we can draw an inference in the present case on the basis of the pleadings raised in the case in the shape of the applications under that Rule and the answering affidavit which clearly reiterates the admission. If that is so, interpretation of the expression 'otherwise" becomes unnecessary.

xxxxx

17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that admissions referred to in Order XII, Rule 6 CPC should be of the same nature as other admissions referred to in other Rule preceding this Rule. Admissions generally arise when a statement is made by a party in any of the modes provided under Sections 18 to 23 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Admissions are of many kinds : they may be considered as being on the record as actual if that is either in the pleadings or in answer to interrogatories or implied from the pleadings by non- traversal. Secondly as between parties by agreement or notice. Since we have considered that admission for passing the judgment is based on pleadings itself it is unnecessary to examine as to what kinds of admissions are covered by Order XII, Rule 6 CPC."

(underlining added)

8. In addition to the aforesaid judgment it is relevant to refer to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs.

Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 242. The

Supreme Court in paragraph 27 of this judgment has made a distinction

between evidentiary admissions and judicial admissions (admission in

pleadings) as evidence. The Supreme Court has held that evidentiary

admissions can be explained away, and which is obviously because of

Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the judicial admissions

however can be the basis of disposal of the matter on merits itself because

judicial admissions stand on a higher footing and pedestal than mere

evidentiary admissions. Judicial admissions have been held by the Supreme

Court in this case to be fully binding on the party which makes them and

constitute a waiver of proof for the judicial admissions to be made

foundation of the rights of the parties. Para 27 of this judgment reads as

under:-

"27. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the principle that emerges is, that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction, though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of

the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong." (underlining added)

9. In the present case, the applicant/defendant no.6 relies upon the

judicial admissions made by the present plaintiff in the earlier civil suit

proceedings. These civil suit proceedings are a suit bearing no. 141/2004

titled as Smt. Panchi Devi Vs. Smt. Seema Thakur & Others. Panchi Devi

is the mother-in-law of the present plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur and the

mother-in-law had filed the suit against Smt. Seema Thakur with respect to

the suit property. In this suit Smt. Seema Thakur through her attorney,

Sh.Vijay Kapoor filed her written statement and para 16 of this written

statement containing judicial admissions reads as under:-

"16. That in reply to para 16 of the plaint, it is submitted that no cause of action has arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. As the mutation in respect of property No.18/50 had taken place on 16.4.1985 and on the basis of the revenue record and mutation, the defendant No.1 purchased the same from defendant No.3 paying due consideration and defendant No.1 finding herself unable to manage the property, sold the same to defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 purchased the property, mutation of property was done by the L&DO in the revenue record, which was authentic. There is no reason to disbelieve the record when the original owner categorically stated that he was owner and in possession of the property No.18/50. On the other hand, the record projects the transaction was bonafide between the

defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 in respect of property in question. The defendant No.1 Smt. Seema Thakur and the defendant No.2 Gopi Chand are the bonafide purchaser in the light of the mutation of the property done by the L&DO. L&DO was the necessary party in the suit. The plaintiff has not made the L&DO a party in the array of defendant in the present suit."

(emphasis is mine)

10. The second civil proceedings wherein the judicial admissions

are made is the suit filed by Smt. Seema Thakur herself being CS(OS) No.

2211/2003 and in this suit an application was filed by Smt. Seema Thakur

under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amending of

the plaint and sought inter alia addition of the following paragraph 15D in

the plaint:-

"15D. That it is submitted that the plaintiffs purchased Shop No.18/50, East Patel Nagar, from Sh. P.N.Vij, who was the original owner and in possession of the said property No. 18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, and the said property was substituted by L&DO vide letter No. L&DO/PS/II 892 dated 16th April, 1965 and the Conveyance Deed registered as documents NO. 3989 on 16th April, 1965. The plaintiff being satisfied to the ownership and possession of Shri P.N.Vij on the basis of record available in L&DO and the revenue records purchased the Shop No. 18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, on 31st May, 2004 after paying the due consideration. The fact that Shri P.N.Vij was the original allottee and owner in possession and sold the Shop No. 18/50, East Patel Nagar, to the plaintiff as has been admitted by him in his written statement filed in Suit No. 141/2004 pending before the Civil shop, the plaintiff has sold the Shop No. 18/50 to Shri Gopi Chand, who has been made defendant No.2 in Suit No. 141/2004 by the defendants in the present suit." (underlining added)

11. On behalf of the applicant/defendant no.6, it is argued that

judicial admissions made in the pleadings by the plaintiff, and through her

same attorney, Sh. Vijay Kapoor who has filed the present suit, constitute a

waiver of proof with respect to the disputes in the present case with respect

to ownership of the suit property having been sold by the plaintiff to

Sh.Gopi Chand, and that such judicial admissions be made foundation of the

rights of the parties for disposal of the suit of the plaintiff vide Nagindas

Ramdas's case (supra). Essentially, it is argued that once by judicial

admissions the plaintiff admits that she had sold the property to Sh. Gopi

Chand, thereafter, a different case cannot be set up that the suit property was

not sold by Smt. Seema Thakur to Sh. Gopi Chand and which is the case of

plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur in this suit.

12. I may at this stage state that so far as other admissions which

have been relied upon by the applicant/defendant no.6 for decreeing of the

suit referring to the contents of judicial orders passed by the Metropolitan

Magistrate showing that it was the plaintiff's case in those criminal

proceedings that she had sold the property to Sh. Gopi Chand are concerned,

I am not relying upon the same for the disposal of the present application,

inasmuch as, counsel for the plaintiff informs this Court that on the

application which has been filed by Smt. Seema Thakur in the court of

Metropolitan Magistrate for expunging the observations made in the judicial

order that Smt. Seema Thakur admits that she had sold the property to Sh.

Gopi Chand, orders are reserved and have to be pronounced by the

concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.8.2015.

13. Then the issue arises is that whether judicial admissions made

in the written statement filed by the present plaintiff in suit no. 141/2004 and

in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in CS(OS) No. 2211/2003 in

this Court (wrongly typed as 2221/2003 in the application under Order VI

Rule 17 CPC), are such admissions for this Court to dismiss the suit under

Order XII Rule 6 CPC. I have already noted that the definition of decree

includes dismissal of the suit vide sub-Section (2) of Section 2 CPC.

14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant has argued that

the application does not deserve to be allowed because the plaintiff in the

present suit has explained the circumstances in which admissions were made

in the judicial proceedings in the two suits being suit no. 141/2004 and

CS(OS) No. 2211/2003 stated above, and which is that there was collusion

between the Advocate, Sh. K.P. Mavi who represented the plaintiff, Smt.

Seema Thakur through her attorney, Sh. Vijay Kapoor in that case and Sh.

Gopi Chand. It is argued that plaintiff has already filed a complaint in the

Bar Council of India against Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate and therefore, judicial

admissions made in the two suits should not be read against the plaintiff. It

is argued that Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate was the advocate of Sh. Gopi Chand

is shown from the documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the list of

documents dated 6.1.2010 being an application filed by the plaintiff in

CS(OS) No. 970/2004 in this Court showing that Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate

was the advocate of Sh. Gopi Chand, and therefore, Sh. K.P. Mavi,

Advocate should be taken as representative of the interest of Sh. Gopi Chand

and not the plaintiff because Sh. Gopi Chand and plaintiff Smt. Seema

Thakur have conflicting interest. It is argued that FIR bearing no. 522/2007

has been lodged by the complainant Sh. Gopi Chand against Smt. Seema

Thakur and thus there are disputes between Sh. Gopi Chand and Smt. Seema

Thakur. It is also argued that Smt. Seema Thakur herself has lodged an FIR

bearing no. 33/12 against Sh. Gopi Chand. It is accordingly argued that

once there is conflicting interest between Sh. Gopi Chand and Smt. Seema

Thakur, alleged admissions made by Smt. Seema Thakur in terms of the

pleadings which are signed no doubt by Sh. Vijay Kapoor, but filed through

Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate, the same cannot be used against the plaintiff.

15. In my opinion, the application in question deserves to be

allowed and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The reasons are given

hereunder.

16. One thing is clear that Sh. Vijay Kapoor is indubitably the

attorney of the plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur. He is the attorney of the

plaintiff not only in this suit but he has consistently been acting as attorney

of Smt. Seema Thakur in all other civil proceedings. Therefore, judicial

admissions made in earlier civil proceedings in litigations for and against

Smt. Seema Thakur, and which judicial admissions show that Smt. Seema

Thakur has sold the suit property to Sh. Gopi Chand, in my opinion, can be

the basis of creation of rights in favour of Sh. Gopi Chand and hence the

present applicant/defendant no.6. As stated in the case of Nagindas (supra),

judicial admissions constitute waiver of proof and such admissions can be

made the foundation of rights of the parties inasmuch as, they are different

from evidentiary admissions/evidence which are not conclusive and can be

shown to be wrong. Putting it differently, evidentiary admissions can be

explained away but judicial admissions cannot be explained away as argued

by the counsel for the plaintiff by alleging collusion between Sh. Gopi

Chand and Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate. In fact on facts, I am unable to agree

that there can at all have been any collusion between Sh. K.P. Mavi,

Advocate and Sh. Gopi Chand inasmuch no doubt Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate

represented Sh. Gopi Chand but during the relevant period of the years

2003-2004 interest of Sh. Gopi Chand and Smt. Seema Thakur were

common i.e it was the admitted position at that stage that Smt.Seema Thakur

had sold the suit property to Sh. Gopi Chand by means of documentation

dated 31.5.2004. At this stage, therefore, Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate would

have represented both Sh. Gopi Chand and Smt. Seema Thakur because

there was commonality of interest between Smt. Seema Thakur and Sh. Gopi

Chand. I therefore fail to understand as to how reckless allegations can be

made by the plaintiff against Sh. K.P. Mavi Advocate, merely because the

plaintiff has conveniently stated that the plaintiff has filed a complaint with

the Bar Council of India, however, no copy of the complaint of the Bar

Council of India has been filed before this Court. Making of the complaint

against Sh. K.P. Mavi, Advocate in the Bar Council of India is stated to be

of the year 2010, but till date in August, 2015, the alleged complaint made to

the Bar Council of India has not seen light of the day. Of course, in my

opinion, filing of complaint in the Bar Council of India against Sh. K.P.

Mavi, Advocate would not have made any difference because a self-

serving complaint made against an Advocate to the Bar Council exists

because a dishonest person such as Smt. Seema Thakur/plaintiff wants to

back out of the admitted case of the property being sold by her to Sh. Gopi

Chand, and such stand of Smt. Seema Thakur hence deserves complete

rejection by this Court. It is relevant and repeated at the cost of repetition

that judicial admissions being relied upon by this Court are those which

were made before disputes had arisen between Smt. Seema Thakur and Sh.

Gopi Chand much later in the year 2007 when Sh. Gopi Chand filed a

criminal complaint against the plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur. In my opinion,

therefore, nothing will turn upon subsequent criminal proceedings initiated

either by Sh. Gopi Chand against Smt. Seema Thakur (in 2007) or Smt.

Seema Thakur against Sh. Gopi Chand (in 2012). However, the water was

calm and clear with respect to the ownership rights transferred by Smt.

Seema Thakur to Sh. Gopi Chand in the year 2004 when the judicial

admissions were made that Smt. Seema Thakur had indeed sold the suit

property to Sh. Gopi Chand.

17. I may note that today a new counsel Mr. Viraj R. Datar appears

for the plaintiff although plaintiff on the last date of hearing when the matter

was argued on behalf of the defendants was represented by Mr. Abinash K.

Mishra, Advocate. During the course of hearing on the last date, a legal

issue on behalf of defendant no.6 had been urged and put to the counsel for

the plaintiff with respect to dismissal of the suit as being barred by limitation

under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in view of Section 3 of

the Limitation Act which allows the court to suo moto dismiss a time barred

suit. This legal issue is that admittedly the plaintiff has known since May,

2004 that she did execute the impugned documents in favour of Sh. Gopi

Chand. Plaintiff no doubt claims that these documents were got illegally

executed from her, but it is not disputed before this Court by the counsel for

the plaintiff that existence of documents of May, 2004 was known to the

plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur in 2004 itself. In law, as per Articles 58 and

59 of the Limitation Act, plaintiff can seek cancellation of the documents or

declaration that they are illegal only if the suit is filed within three years of

arising of cause of action. Cause of action arises from the date of knowledge

of existence of the documents and once the documents are known to the

plaintiff admittedly since the year 2004, this suit had to be filed by the year

2007 for questioning the documents, but, the present suit is filed in the year

2010. I may note that the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of

Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 353 has held that there

are two types of documents viz void documents and voidable documents.

The Supreme Court in Prem Singh's case (supra) has held that there is no

period of limitation with respect to void documents but where the documents

are pleaded to be voidable then the suit under Section 31 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963 read with Article 59 of the Limitation Act has to be filed

within three years of the fact on the basis of which plaintiff seeks to cancel

the documents comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Since the admitted

position in the present case is that knowledge of the documents which are

impugned by the plaintiff in May, 2004 in favour of the defendant no.3, Sh.

Gopi Chand were to the knowledge of the plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur

since May, 2004 itself, and which documents are claimed to be voidable,

the ratio in the judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra) will squarely

apply and the suit will also be clearly barred by limitation being filed beyond

three years as required by Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act.

18. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the suit is

dismissed on both the counts of the plaintiff not being entitled to explain

away the judicial admissions of the transfer of title in the suit property

having been made by her to defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand but also on the

ground of limitation. Plaintiff thus by the present suit cannot lay a cause of

action and claim reliefs that the plaintiff has not sold the suit property to

defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand and which Sh. Gopi Chand has thereafter

further sold the property to defendant no. 4, Smt. Sunita Wadhwa and then

by Smt. Sunita Wadhwa to the defendant no.6/applicant.

19. Considering the facts of the present case I am of the opinion

that the plaintiff has come to this Court with a false case. Section 209 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) provides that when a person comes to court

with a false case, such person is liable to be punished by imprisonment for a

period upto two years in addition to fine. I therefore issue notice to the

plaintiff as also to her attorney, Sh. Vijay Kapoor under Section 340 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C) to show cause as to why a

criminal case be not lodged against the plaintiff and her attorney, Sh. Vijay

Kapoor by the Registrar General of this Court or by the defendant no.6 in

terms of permission to be granted by this Court, under Section 209 IPC.

Show cause notice be issued to the plaintiff as also to her attorney, Sh. Vijay

Kapoor returnable on 28.10.2015. I may note that the show cause notice

will be personally replied not only by the plaintiff but also by her attorney,

Sh. Vijay Kapoor inasmuch as, pleadings in this case as also in the earlier

civil proceedings have admittedly been signed by Sh. Vijay Kapoor on

behalf of Smt. Seema Thakur.

20. At this stage, counsel for defendant no.6 states that in view of

the suit having been dismissed, the counter claim filed by him of declaration,

defendant no.6 being a lawful owner is for the present not being pursued

more so because effectively this Court by the present judgment has held that

the plaintiff cannot question transfer of ownership rights in the suit property

to Sh. Gopi Chand and Sh. Gopi Chand is not disputing transfer of title in

the suit property firstly to Smt. Sunita Wadhwa and thereafter to

applicant/defendant no.6. Liberty is however given to the defendant

no.6/applicant to revive the counter claim if for some reason the suit itself is

revived.

21. Both Smt. Seema Thakur and Sh. Vijay Kapoor will remain

personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.

22. The application is allowed and the suit is accordingly dismissed

in terms of the aforesaid observations. Decree sheet be prepared.

AUGUST 19, 2015                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib