DEEPAK AGGARWAL Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants No. 1 and 2 vide the present Regular Second Appeal assail the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 of the First Appellate Court of the Additional District Judge-03 (North-West), Rohini Courts in RCA No. 86/2017 vide which the said appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2017 of the Court of the ACJ-cum- ARC (North-West) in New Suit No. 59269/2016 (Old suit no. 32/2015) was dismissed.

(2.) Vide the order dated 5.9.2017, the suit filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi arrayed as the respondent to the present appeal against the appellants herein arrayed as the defendants to that suit was decreed to the effect:

(3.) The said decree was prepared in terms of the Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC on the basis of the pleadings and the material available on record on an application filed by the plaintiff dated 3.4.2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 5.9.2017. Through the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the plaintiff, i.e., the respondent herein had stated that on the basis of the defence that had been taken by the defendants to the said suit, i.e., the appellants herein, in their written statement filed in the instant case, the defendant No.1 i.e., the appellant No.1 herein, had filed a suit for partition bearing CS(OS) No. 2711/2015 tilted Sh.Deepak Aggarwal v. Sh. Raj Goyal and Others which was dismissed in limine by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2015. Through her application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the plaintiff i.e., the respondent had stated that apart from the dismissal of the suit CS(OS) No. 2711/2015 by this Court, it was submitted by the appellants i.e., the appellants herein, that the pleas of defendant No.1 i.e., the appellant herein in relation to the aspect of the property in question, being an HUF property had been rejected and it had been observed vide para 10 of the order to the effect: