Delhi High Court Imposes ₹25K Costs On Litigant For Delay Tactics In 21 Year Old Property Dispute

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant for filing a revision petition seeking to delay adjudication in a 21 year old property dispute which is at final stage of hearing before the trial court. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the plea filed by one Krishna Devi, respondent in the suit, challenging the dismissal of her application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC by trial court. The suit was filed in 2004 seeking declaration that the sale deed dated May 14, 2003, as null and void. It further sought dispossession of the Respondent from the suit property.The ground for filing the application was that the plaint referred to a Sale Deed of the year 1961 and thus, the plaint was barred by limitation.It was the Respondent's case that Devi was merely trying to delay the final adjudication of the suit and that the Sale Deed was of the year 2003. On September 19, the High Court had granted an adjournment, subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000 to be paid by Devi to the Respondent. However, the order was not complied with. The Respondent submitted that Devi's application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC alone and for rejection of plaint in view of the suit being barred by limitation. It was contended that the Plaintiff cannot take any fresh grounds before the High Court.Dismissing the plea, the Court said that since no challenge on the ground under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the CPC was taken by Devi in her Application, the challenge before the High Court could not be sustained.“No doubt, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, however, in as suit which was originally filed in the year 2004, where the evidence of both the parties has been concluded and the matter is at the stage of final arguments, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can but only be filed to delay the adjudication of the suit. This has also been set out by the Impugned Order,” the Court said.It added that the suit, which was filed in 2004, seeks declaration and injunction in respect of a sale deed that was executed in 2003 and thus, prima facie, the Plaint did not appear to be barred by limitation. Observing that the said aspect of the matter shall be examined by the Trial Court at the time of trial as the suit is yet to be finally disposed of, the Court said:“From a perusal of the Plaint and the documents filed along with the Plaint, it cannot be said on a demurer that the Plaint is barred by limitation. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.”However, Justice Ganju clarified that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Trial Court.Title: KRISHNA DEVI v. AMOLAK SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRSCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1264Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹25K Costs On Litigant For Delay Tactics In 21 Year Old Property Dispute

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags