RADHEY SHYAM vs PARMESHWARI DAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24th January, 2025 + FAO 379/2024 & CM APPL. 71512/2024 FOR DIRECTIONS RADHEY SHYAM .....Appellant Through: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur and Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sharma, Advs. versus PARMESHWARI DAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.09.2024, passed by the learned District Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Suit bearing No. CS DJ 58442/2016, titled “Radhey Shyam (Senior Citizen) Vs. Parmeshwari Dass & Anr.”, whereby, learned trial court allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 10 & 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure [“the Code”], 1908 and returned the plaint filed by the appellant. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA KUMARI FAO 379/2024 Signing Date:12.02.2025 Page 1 of 9 17:11:54 2. By virtue of the impugned order dated 12.09.2024, learned District Judge observed that the court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction as the subject matter i.e. suit property is situated in North- West District, and therefore, any decree/judgment passed by the Court shall be non-est/nullity and thus concluded that the District Judge, North District has no jurisdiction to assume subject matter jurisdiction and passed the order for the return of the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff instituted a suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and recovery of damages qua property bearing No. A-18, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034 [hereinafter referred as the “suit property”] before