$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 24/2023, CM APPL. 4805/2023
VARSHA KOHLI
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarun K. Bedi, Advocate.
versus
GEETANJALI CHADHA & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Swati Rathi, Mr. Rohit Boora,
Mr. Prem Sood, Ms. Chetishta Malik
and Mr. Luv Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 30.09.2024
CM APPL. 4807/2023 (under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Petitioner
seeking Condonation of Delay of 92 days in re-filing the Petition)
1. An application seeking Condonation of Delay of 92 days in re-filing
the petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. In view of the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is accordingly disposed of.
C.R.P. 24/2023
4. A Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner for recall of the Orders dated 28.01.2020 and
27.08.2022 of learned ADJ whereby the right of the petitioner to lead
defence evidence has been closed.
5. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner is a 75 years old lady
whose hearing is impaired. She is the lawful owner of two and half floor
residential house bearing Np.C-9/85, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi, where she had
been living on the first floor, while the other floors had been rented out. The
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2024 at 15:51:29
rental income was the only source of her survival. After the demise of her
first husband in the year 1998, she remarried Rajinder Katiyar, who was
living in the vicinity. From the first marriage she had one daughter
Geetanjali who got married to Dheeraj Chaddha. Having no steady source
of income, they were also dependant upon the petitioner for their financial
needs. Later on, Dheeraj Chadha became a person of criminal nature and
was arrested in a murder case and remained in judicial custody.
6. In connivance with each other, both the respondents prepared a Sale
Deed of the suit property and got it fraudulently registered in September,
2012 in favour the daughter Geetanjali. Entire consideration amount was
shown in cash which is sufficient to show that the Sale Deed had been
registered by playing fraud on the petitioner.
7. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit CS No.1897/2013 for cancellation of
Sale Deed and Permanent Injunction against the respondents, who are her
own daughter and son-in-law. The petitioner was dispossessed from the suit
property and the respondents even started collecting the rent accruing from
the other floors. The case was initially instituted in Delhi High Court, but
due to the change in pecuniary jurisdiction was transferred to Rohini Courts.
The defence of the respondents was struck off vide Order dated 01.102019
and the matter is now listed for final arguments on 07.11.2022.
8. The petitioner submits that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed
vide Order dated 28.01.2020. The Review filed against the said Order was
also dismissed by learned ADJ vide Order dated 27.08.2022, which is
challenged by way of present Revision Petition.
9. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear on account of
her ailing husband who was suffering from Cancer and who has died on
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2024 at 15:51:29
13.07.2020. Her inability to lead her evidence was purely on account of
circumstances beyond her control. The parties had even tried for
reconciliation through Mediation Cell, but to no avail. The right of the
petitioner would be adversely affected and she would suffer irrepairable loss
if she is not given an opportunity to lead her evidence.
10. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Order dated 28.01.2020 and
27.08.2022 may be set aside and one opportunity may be given to the
petitioner to adduce the evidence.
11. No formal reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and none
is present on their behalf.
12. Submissions heard.
13. The suit had been filed in the year 2013 and the details of dates as
filed by the petitioner show that effectively the adjournment had been taken
on three dates by the petitioner, which essentially was also on account of
ailing husband, who has finally died.
14. Considering the totality of circumstances, the petitioner is given two
opportunities to conclude her entire evidence. No further opportunity on
any ground shall be given.
15. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on
04.10.2024.
16. The petition stands disposed of along with the pending application.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2024/va
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2024 at 15:51:29