AKEEL AHMAD vs AMIT MODI & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 27.06.2025 + C.R.P. 283/2019 & CM APPL. 52551/2019, CM APPL. 61968/2023 AKEEL AHMAD .....Petitioner versus AMIT MODI & ORS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Varun Nischal, Mr. Karan Jain and Ms. Saira Tagra, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Mr. Rishi Diwan and Ms. Gayatri, Advs. for R- 1 to 4 & 6. Mr. R.K. Dhawan, SC, DDA with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. V.K. Deng and Mr. Naman Kumar Thakur, Advs. for R-8 / DDA. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2017 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 27.09.2017’) and the order dated 16.07.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 16.07.2019’), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘ADJ’) in civil suit bearing No. 2386/1996. Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR C.R.P. 283/2019 Page 1 of 25 Signing Date:30.06.2025 18:51:15 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a Civil Suit bearing No. 2386/1996 was filed by one Ms. Swaran Lata d/o Sh. Harish Chand/ plaintiff seeking cancellation/ declaration and permanent injunction, claiming herself to be the owner of the property bearing No. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi (hereafter “suit property”). The plaintiff claimed that she was a Sadhvi and remained unmarried throughout her life and that the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 (respondents in the present petition) had illegally occupied the suit property asserting that they had purchased the same from each other. 3. The petitioner had, on a previous occasion, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment in the suit in place of the plaintiff or in the alternative, as a co-p