Delhi High Court
Mahant P. L. Mangal Dass Alias ... vs Ravi Kumar Juneja & Ors. on 30 January, 2018
$~4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 30th January, 2018
+ CM(M) 384/2015 and CM APPL.7977/2015 (stay)
MAHANT P. L. MANGAL DASS ALIAS PIARE LAL
(DECEASED THR HIS LEGAL HEIRS) ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate with
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advocate
versus
RAVI KUMAR JUNEJA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Jatav, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. A Civil Suit (CS No.30/10/90) was instituted by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners seeking relief of permanent
injunction against interference in his possession over the premises
which he described as Shri Katas Raj Dham Ashram, Raghubir Nagar,
Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi. Pertinent to note here that the
said plaintiff had pleaded, inter alia, that he was mahant, founder and
trustee of the said ashram having constructed and built the super-
structure in question. He described the respondents, who were
impleaded as defendants as local residents who were trying to forcibly
dispossess him in order to construct shops and make wrongful gain
therefrom.
2. The suit was resisted by the respondents by written statement,
inter alia, taking the plea that the plaintiff did not own the property
and had no right, title or interest therein, it having been unauthorizedly
built over the government land.
3. The suit was at the stage of trial, statedly almost at the fag end,
when the original plaintiff died on 09.09.2009. An application in
terms of requirements of Order XXII Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was presented by the petitioners, admittedly
belatedly, on 17.09.2010. The said application was dismissed by the
Civil Judge by order dated 31.05.2011 primarily on the basis of
observations that the delay had not been properly explained. The
petitioners thereafter moved an application for review submitting
some further documents to explain the delay.
4. The said prayer was also rejected by order dated 01.12.2014.
The petition at hand seeks to assail both the aforesaid orders.
5. Having heard the counsel on both sides and having gone
through the record, this court is of the view that it will be unfair to
non-suit the petitioners only because there was delay in moving the
application for substitution. The additional material submitted at the
time of review had explained the delay sufficiently. The daughter-in-
law of the plaintiff had died and the widow of the original plaintiff had
suffered a fracture in May-June, 2010 which undoubtedly would have
shifted the focus of the family to the urgent medical needs.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the delay is condoned.
The question as to whether the original plaintiff had personal interest
in the subject property, that is to say as to whether he had invested
from his own resources to build the super-structure in question would
need to be addressed at the time of final adjudication. From
averments to such effect, prima facie, it can be recorded that the cause
of action has survived.
7. Thus, the impugned orders are set aside. The prayer for
substitution is allowed. Petitioners shall stand impleaded in place of
the original plaintiff (since deceased) and held entitled to prosecute it
further. The proceedings in the suit, thus, stand revived on the file of
the Civil Judge.
8. The parties shall appear before the concerned court for further
proceedings on 28th February, 2018.
9. The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of
with these observations.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 30, 2018
vk
