Mr. Shyamal Kumar and Ms. Apoorva Pal, Advocates v. SMT RAMESH KUMARI ORS

Judgment

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails correctness of the Judgment/Order dated 10.01.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed in Review Petition No. 10/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Review Petition filed by the Appellant seeking review of the Order dated

18.11.2024. In the aforesaid Order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:32:49 FAO(OS) 29/2025 Page 1 of 21 application is barred by the period of limitation as the same has been sought after seven years of the institution of the suit and eight years on coming to know that the General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) has been misused.

2. In the facts of the present case, the question which requires adjudication by this Court is whether an amendment application to insert a prayer for declaration/cancellation of GPA, which is barred by the limitation period, can be allowed or not? FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

The facts leading to the dispute are that one Mr. Jaswant Singh Bhullar [hereinafter referred to as ‘Mr. Bhullar’], who met the Appellant in the United States of America (‘USA’), suggested to the Appellant that Delhi was not safe for the people of his community, and the Appellant should consider divesting his landholdings, admeasuring 33 Bighas 09 Biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 33/7/2, 33/8/2, 33/13, 33/14/1, 33/17, 33/118/2, 36/2, and 36/3, situated in Village Samalkha, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’]. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant caused a GPA dated

24.07.1987 to be prepared and delivered it to Mr. Bhullar. However, it is the case of the Appellant that the said instrument was never acted upon and was subsequently taken back by the Appellant.

5. Further, it is stated that after a few years, Mr. Bhullar introduced the Appellant to one Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj [hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:32:49 FAO(OS) 29/2025 Page 2 of 21 referred to as ‘Mr. Bhardwaj’], wherein Mr. Bhardwaj promised the Appellant that he would look after his land, as he has land in the same vicinity, and that he is living in the same area. Relying on the statement of Mr. Bhardwaj, the Appellant had accepted the offer of Mr. Bhardwaj to look after the land. However, no document had been executed by the Appellant in favour of Mr. Bhardwaj, and the Appellant only permitted him to assume permissive possession of the suit land in the capacity of caretaker, with no right, title, or interest therein.

6. Notwithstanding the demise of Mr. Bhullar in 1993, the aforementioned arrangement subsisted, and the Appellant had no reason to doubt the bona fides or intentions of Mr. Bhardwaj with respect to the suit land. However, subsequently, the Appellant discovered that Mr. Bhardwaj, who was murdered in 2013, had been misusing the suit land. The Appellant further learnt that Mr. Bhullar had retained a copy of the GPA, and on that basis, executed 13 Sale Deeds in favour of various persons in relation to the suit land, even after the Appellant had taken back the GPA. Consequently, multiple legal proceedings pertaining to the suit land came to be initiated and were pending adjudication before the Court.

7. On 21.07.2016, the Appellant filed the impugned suit, i.e., CS(OS) 63/2017, seeking a decree of declaration and cancellation of the 13 Sale Deeds, and also for a declaration that the Respondents are in illegal possession of the suit land. Herein, it is material to note that as presently framed, the plaint neither contains any prayer for Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:32:49 FAO(OS) 29/2025 Page 3 of 21 cancellation of the GPA, nor does it seek a declaration that said GPA was forged or fabricated.

8. Subsequently, on 19.01.2024, the Defendant No. 1 (B), son of Mr. Bhardwaj, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’], seeking rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by the period of limitation and further, on 11.09.2024, for inserting a prayer for declaration, declaring the GPA to be null and void and as never having been executed by the Appellant, and that the same is forged and fabricated and non est, the Appellant filed the Application bearing I.A. No. 39429/2024 seeking amendment of the plaint [hereinafter referred to as ‘Amendment Application’].

9. However, the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the Judgment dated 18.11.2024, on the following grounds: i. If the Amendment Application is accepted today, the suit, had it been filed today, would be barred by the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Article 59’] and would revive a dead claim; ii. The remedy stands barred by the limitation period and the same cannot be permitted to be revived, by way of an amendment in the plaint, as it causes substantial prejudice to the Respondents.

10. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant filed the Review Petition No. 10/2025 seeking review of the judgment dated 18.11.2024, however, Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:32:49 FAO(OS) 29/2025 Page 4 of 21 the same was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 10.01.2025 for the following reasons: i. Though the present suit is one for possession, the prayer that was sought to be introduced was for the cancellation of the GPA. Thus, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Article 65’] is not applicable herein. ii. In any case, the scope of a Review Petition is extremely limited, and the arguments sought by the Appellant are beyond the scope of review.

11. Hence to challenge the Orders dated 18.11.2024 & 10.01.2025, the Appellant filed the present Appeal. CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, with their able assistance, perused the paper book.

13. Learned counsel for the Appellant, while placing reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors.1 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.2 contends that the Amendment Application shall be governed by Article 65, whereby the limitation period applicable would be 12 years and hence the suit is not barred by the limitation period.

14. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.1 has 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1961 2 (2022) 16 SCC 1 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:32:49 FAO(OS) 29/2025 Page 5 of 21 made the following contentions: i. The main relief sought in the Amendment Application is for the cancellation of the GPA, and hence, it will attract Article 59 for the determination of the limitation period. ii. The remedy sought by the Appellant is barred by the limitation period. For the same, reliance is placed upon the judgments rendered in Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (Deceased) through LRs & Anr.3; Prem Singh & Ors. v. Birbal & Ors.4 and Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors.5. iii. No new facts/new or important evidence have been discovered that were not in the knowledge earlier. Hence, the Review Petition has been rightly dismissed.

15. There are no other arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

16. The crux of the issue is whether it is Article 59 or Article 65, which would apply to the present facts in hand. The aforesaid Articles are reproduced as under:

59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. Three years. When entitling the plaintiff instrument or decree cancelled aside or the contract rescinded become known him.