RAJWANTI PHOGAT Vs. GIAN CHAND SETHI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi ("ADJ") in CS No.57967/2016 titled as "Gian Chand Sethi Vs. Rajwanti Phougat", allowing the application of the applicants/respondent no.2 and 3, who are the subsequent buyers of the property in question from respondent no.1 in terms of the Sale Deed dated 03.07.2014, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant/defendant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court should have directed the substituted plaintiffs to prove the execution and registration of alleged Sale Deed in their favour by the original plaintiff. He further submits that the alleged Sale Deed was executed in favour of respondent no.2 and 3 by respondent no.1 on 03.07.2014, which was registered on 04.07.2014 and factum of pendency of the present suit is recited in the said Sale Deed. He urges that the application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") having been filed on 06.12.2017 is beyond 3 years of limitation as residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no period of limitation prescribed to move such application. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.