Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3866 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27286 OF 2015 ]  NOOR NAGAR EXT. WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR.    Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS ORUJ AHMAD & ORS.                             Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter.

3. The appellants in this appeal were the defendants in CS(OS) No. 2310 of 2011 on the file of the High Court  of  Delhi.   They  filed  an  application  under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as I.A.No. 17544 of 2011.  The application was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

4. The plaintiffs pursued the same in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.  The Division Bench  set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge.  The relevant paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 read as follows :-

Page 2

2

“10. In  view  of  the  above,  the impugned  order  dated  30th September, 2014 is not sustainable and is hereby set aside and quashed.  The matter is remanded  for  consideration  afresh. Needless  to  say  the  impact  of  the statutory  provisions  noted  by  us hereinabove so far as the acquisition pursuant to the notification of 1966 and  on  the  order  dated  29th August, 2001 is left open for consideration in the  suit.   In  case,  the  respondent nos. 2 and 3 file an application in accordance  with  law  for  seeking rejection  of  the  plaint  setting  out tenable  grounds,  the  same  may  be considered by the learned Single Judge afresh.   However,  the  application  being

I.A.No.  17544  of  2011  would  stand disposed of.    11. The parties shall appear before the  Joint  Registrar  for  further proceedings in the suit on 24th April, 2015.

12. In  view  of  the  restoration  of the proceedings in the suit, we direct status quo as on date with regard to the title, possession and construction of  the  suit  property  till  further orders by the learned Single Judge or any other court.

Page 3

3

13. This appeal as well as pending application are allowed in the above terms.”

5. Having  heard  Sh.  Ravinder  Srivastava,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  and Sh.Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and having also heard Respondent No. 2, who has appeared in-person, we are of the view that since the Division Bench has chosen to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge with liberty to the parties to file a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the very same I.A.No. 17544 of 2011 also  should have  been revived  with liberty  to the parties  to  take  fresh  contentions  and  also  with liberty to amend the pleadings, if so required.

6. In  that view  of the  matter, we  set aside  the impugned order to the extent of disposal of I.A. No. 17544 of 2011 and dispose of this appeal, making it clear that before the learned Single Judge, I.A.No. 17544 of 2011 will also stand revived.  The parties are also at liberty to amend the pleadings.

7. Since the remission is for fresh consideration by the High Court, we make it clear that it will be open to both the parties to take all available contentions

Page 4

4

before the High Court, which shall be considered on their own merits, uninfluenced by any of the orders already passed, either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench.

No costs.         .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; March 09, 2017.