SUDESH KUMAR BHOLA vs PARVEEN JAIN & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 13.11.2025 + C.R.P. 313/2025 SUDESH KUMAR BHOLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay K. Gupta and Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocates versus PARVEEN JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh and Ms. Bharti Yadav, Advocates for MCD CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 70934/2025 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 313/2025 & CM APPL. 70935/2025 (delay in filing) 3. The petitioner, who is arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit bearing CS DJ 6856/2016 pending before the District Court, Saket, has filed this petition seeking revision of an order dated 18.07.2025. By the said order, the Trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC”]. 4. The only ground urged by Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the suit instituted by the respondent No.1/plaintiff was barred by limitation. 5. A copy of the plaint has been placed on the record. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL C.R.P. 313/2025 Page 1 of 6 VASHIST Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:52:28 6. The relief sought by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff relates to a declaration that a sale deed dated 01.06.1998 executed by the plaintiff’s brother (defendant No.2 in the suit/respondent No.2 herein) in favour of the petitioner is null and void, a declaration that the plaintiff remains co- owner of the suit property (883/6, Ward No. VI, Main Bazar Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi), possession of the suit property, injunction, and accounts. 7. Mr. Gupta submits that the Sale Deed was admittedly executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner on 01.06.1998, whereas the