LAXMAN PRASAD GUPTA & ANR Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8.7.2008 by virtue of which the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Suit No.200/06 titled Jaspal Singh vs. Laxman Prashad Gupta & Another holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and therefore, has to be decided after the parties are permitted to adduce evidence. So far as issue No.4 which was framed with regard to the suit not being properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is concerned, the same was also directed to be substantiated by the applicant/defendant and could be decided after the parties have adduced their evidence.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit as framed without reference to the defence of the applicant/defendant is barred by limitation as the same is filed for recovery of possession and the suit for recovery of possession is to be filed within 12 years from the date of accrual of cause of action whereas it has been filed after expiry of 12 years.

(3.) Before dealing with this point, it may be pertinent here to give the facts of the case. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of premises bearing Flat No.1 & 2, Mezzanine Floor, 14, School Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi alleging that his father Raghubir Singh Wadhera, who died on 30.11.1992, had purchased the suit property from M/s. Lion Builders Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.1.5 lacs against receipt-cum-possession letter dated 2.6.1989 and actual possession was handed over to him. The seller also issued a duly sworn and attested affidavit dated 1.10.1990 and letter of allotment dated 29.5.1989 to father of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff is claiming ownership rights of the suit property. It is alleged that the petitioners/defendants took forcible possession of the suit property by breaking open the locks on 26.3.1991 and a criminal complaint was also lodged in this regard. As a counter-blast, the petitioners/defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against Raghubir Singh Wadhera on fictitious grounds, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 22.10.2005. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent maintained that their father is the owner of the suit property and through him, they are the legal owners. The respondent/plaintiff also instituted another civil suit for permanent injunction against petitioners/defendants along with contempt petition bearing No.35/99 before the learned Civil Judge. The petitioners/defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property since 1991.