Delhi High Court Fines Litigant ₹25K for Delay Tactics in Two-Decade-Old Property Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed a revision petition in a long-running property dispute, and imposed costs of ₹25,000 for attempting to delay the proceedings. The petition challenged the trial court’s refusal to reject as time-barred a suit filed by the late Amolak Singh, who sought to have a 2003 sale deed for a Krishna Puri property declared invalid and to secure protection from dispossession. The Court held that the limitation issue must be decided at trial and criticized the belated challenge in a case pending for over two decades.
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The impugned order had dismissed her application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
The dispute originated from a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed in 2004 by the plaintiff, Amolak Singh (since deceased, now represented through legal representatives), concerning property bearing Municipal No. 39/65, Krishna Puri, near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiff sought a declaration that a sale deed dated 14.05.2003, executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 3, was illegal, unlawful, and void ab initio. The suit also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.
The petitioner contended that the suit was barred by limitation, invoking Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, argued that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could be filed at any stage of the proceedings. The petitioner further claimed that references in the plaint to a prior suit filed in 1981 rendered the current suit time-barred.
In response, counsel for the respondents contended that the application was filed only at the stage of final arguments, after evidence from both sides had concluded, and was therefore intended to delay adjudication. The respondent stated that the suit challenged a 2003 sale deed, not one from 1961 as alleged by the petitioner. It was further pointed out that the plaintiff had already passed away, and the matter had been pending for over 20 years.
The trial court, after reviewing the pleadings, held that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and could not be determined at the threshold stage through an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The trial court therefore dismissed the petitioner’s application.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju recorded that the petitioner’s grounds were limited to an alleged bar of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and that the argument under Rule 11(a) had not been raised before the trial court. “It is settled law that where a plea has not been taken before the Trial Court, it cannot be adjudicated under the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court,” the Court stated, relying on Food Corporation of India & Anr. v. Yadav Engineer & Contractor (1982) 2 SCC 499 and Madan Mohan Kotal v. Gobinda Kotal (2002) 9 SCC 457.
The Court observed that the plaint clearly sought reliefs concerning a sale deed executed in 2003 and not a deed from 1961 as claimed by the petitioner. Justice Ganju noted that “the suit has been filed seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 14.05.2003 is null and void and seeking dispossession of the Respondent/Plaintiff from the suit property.” The Court also stated that the examination under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be confined to the plaint and accompanying documents, without considering the defence.
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust (2006) 5 SCC 658, the Court reiterated that “the present suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of issue of limitation, and taking of evidence.” The Court also referred to Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar (2020) 12 SCC 809 to reaffirm that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
On the applicability of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the Court observed that the Article applies to suits seeking to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree. “The Plaint however, that has been filed, seeks declaratory and possessory relief. The provisions of Article 59 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, cannot be said to be applicable to the present case,” Justice Ganju recorded.
Further, the Court noted the timing of the application, observing that “in a suit which was originally filed in the year 2004, where the evidence of both parties has been concluded and the matter is at the stage of final arguments, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can but only be filed to delay the adjudication of the suit.” The Court recorded that the application appeared to have been filed with the sole intention of stalling final adjudication.
The Court thus found no merit in the petitioner’s challenge, observing that “from a perusal of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint, it cannot be said on a demurrer that the plaint is barred by limitation.”
The Court recorded: “The Petition is accordingly dismissed.” The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit and that “the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court.”
The Court, taking note of the prolonged pendency of the matter, remarked that the application had been filed to delay adjudication of a suit pending for more than 21 years. Consequently, “this Court deems it apposite to direct the Petitioner to pay the costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Charanjeet Bhalla and Mr. Gautam Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Dhalla and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat, Advocates.
Case Title: Krishna Devi v. Amolak Singh (Now Deceased) Through LRs
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8863
Case Number: C.R.P. 41/2024
Bench: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
