SUSHIL KUMAR SONI & ORS vs RAVINDER

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th March, 2026 + RFA 894/2018 with CM APPL. 45592/2018, CM APPL. 45593/2018 & CM APPL. 16609/2021 SUSHIL KUMAR SONI & ORS .....Appellants Through: Ms. Varsha Agarwal, Advocate (through VC). versus RAVINDER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohan Kanhai, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 45592/2018 1. The appellants (plaintiffs before the Trial Court) instituted a suit being CS No. 576168/2016 titled Shri Sushil Kumar Soni & Ors. v. Shri Ravinder inter alia for recovery of possession, use, occupation, damages, mesne profits as well as permanent injunction. 2. The said suit as dismissed vide judgment dated 28th August, 2018 passed by ADJ-03 (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned judgment’). 3. The appellants preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment along with the present application under Order XLI Rule 27(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) seeking to place on Signature Not Verified Signed By:AARZOO RFA 894/2018 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:14.03.2026 18:10:16 record additional evidence in the form of following documents: 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid documents were in possession of the appellant no.3, who was the mother of the appellants no.1 and 2 and who expired on 2nd February, 2013, i.e., during the pendency of the suit. 5. It is the submission of the appellants that the aforesaid documents were not traceable till the time of decision of the Trial Court and the appellants were not aware of the said documents. 6. The appellant no.3 resided with her son, Lt Cdr. Vijay Kumar Soni (appellant no.2), at Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. 7. It was only in September 2018, i.e. after the dismiss