RAN BAHADUR vs ANITA DEVI & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~J- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20th November, 2025 + RSA 246/2016 RAN BAHADUR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mayank Goel with Ms. Mehanpreet Kaur and Mr. Diganta Das, Advocates. versus ANITA DEVI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. M. S. Jadhav, Advocate and R-1 in-person. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J U D G M E N T ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J. By way of the present second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 („CPC‟), the appellant impugns order dated 22.08.2016 passed in appeal bearing RCA No. 26/2016, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, South West District, Dwarka District Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS No. 18/2012 has been dismissed by the learned first appellate court. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Vide judgment dated 31.10.2015, the suit filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff in the suit) seeking a decree for possession, declaration, damages and permanent injunction against respondent No. 2 (her Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing RSA 246/2016 Page 1 of 11 Date:17.12.2025 12:50 former husband who was defendant No.1 in the suit) and the appellant (defendant No.2), in relation to property bearing No. C-68, Phase-I, Sector-3, Pappan Kalan, New Delhi, was decreed. 3. The suit was contested only by the appellant (defendant No.2) who filed written statement dated 02.05.2013. However respondent No.2 (defendant No. 1) did not appear before the learned trial court despite service; and was therefore proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2013. 4. On point of fact, it is the admitted position, that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, were divorced vidé a decree dated 12.08.2000. 5. The genesis of the dispute betw