JUDGMENT 1. By virtue of this order, I propose to dispose of this application preferred by Defendant No.1 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) with the following prayers:- (a) Applicant/Defendant No.1 and legal heirs of Defendant No.2 may kindly be permitted to file written statement and documents in support of their claim; (b) Proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 may kindly be initiated against the contemnors as detailed and described in the present application for their fraudulent acts; (c) The offences committed by contemnors under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) may kindly be referred to CBI or other investigating agency for needful investigation in the matter as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper; and (d) Pass any other/further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. A suit for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 05.08.1991, purported to have been executed by Late Sardar Sajjan Singh, husband of the Plaintiff, was filed by her on the ground that her husband Late Sardar Sajjan Singh had purchased two plots of land bearing nos.D-1/20 and D-1/21, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, admeasuring 458 and 373 sq.yds. respectively by virtue of Sale Deed dated 12.09.1956. He was in possession of the plots during his lifetime. He died on 18.04.1972. During his lifetime, Late Sardar Sajjan Singh also executed a Will dated 26.09.1961 which was probated in the High Court in Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur on 24.10.1972 and the probate was granted in favour of the Plaintiff by an order dated 31.12.1973. The plots in question stood vested in favour of the Plaintiff and she had been in possession and enjoyment thereof till date without any impediment or interruption. The Plaintiff’s version is that in February, 1993, the Plaintiff initiated steps for mutation of her name in the records of the MCD so as to clear the municipal taxes. The concerned officer of the MCD postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and refused to grant any hearing to the Plaintiff’s attorney/representative. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s representative was told that mutation of the property had already been effected in the name of Defendants no.1 and 2 on the basis of certain sale deeds executed in their favour. The concerned officer of the MCD postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and refused to grant any hearing to the Plaintiff’s attorney/representative. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s representative was told that mutation of the property had already been effected in the name of Defendants no.1 and 2 on the basis of certain sale deeds executed in their favour. On further inquiries from the office of the Sub-Registrar, the Plaintiff came to know that Defendants No.1 and 2 vide registered sale deeds dated 05.08.1991, purportedly executed by Late Sardar Sajjan Singh had got transferred the earlier stated two plots in their favour. 3. The sum and substance of the suit is that Late Sardar Sajjan Singh had died in the year 1972, that is, much before the execution and registration of the sale deeds in the year 1991. The sale deeds got executed in favour of Defendants no.1 and 2 were forged ones. 4. It is averred that Defendant no.1 had also filed a civil suit being CS(OS) No.3384/1990 on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, purported to have been executed in his favour by Late Sardar Sajjan Singh, who was alleged to be his wife’s uncle and it was pleaded that the premises were occupied by two tenants and that the same was being purchased along with tenants. In the said civil suit, Defendants No.3 and 4 in their application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC had although falsely but all the same mentioned that Late Sardar Sajjan Singh had died in Malaysia in the year 1984. Therefore, even if Defendants no.1 and 2 were to be bona fide purchasers, they would have never got the sale deeds executed in their favour. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendants No.6 to 8 claimed to possess sale deeds in respect of the earlier stated plots from Defendants no.1 and 2. The Plaintiff thus, prayed for a decree of declaration that she was the absolute owner and in possession of the properties, D-1/20 and D-1/21, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendants No.6 to 8 claimed to possess sale deeds in respect of the earlier stated plots from Defendants no.1 and 2. The Plaintiff thus, prayed for a decree of declaration that she was the absolute owner and in possession of the properties, D-1/20 and D-1/21, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Apart from various other reliefs, the Plaintiff claims:- (a) a decree against Defendants no.1 and 2 for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 05.08.1991 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar; (b) a decree against Defendants no.6 to 8 for cancellation of the Sale Deeds registered on 06.04.1995, 03.08.1995, 19.04.1995 and the sale deed awaiting registration and for direction to Defendants no.6 to 8 to deliver up the Sale deeds to the Plaintiff. 5. In the instant application filed by Defendant no.1 (Defendant no.2, who is the son of Defendant no.1 is stated to have expired on 03.02.2003 and his death certificate has been placed along with copy of this application as Annexure D-1), Defendant no.1 alleges that the summons/notice of the suit were never served upon Defendants no.1 and 2. The suit was dismissed in default on 09.01.2007, publication of the notice of restoration was done in certain newspapers but notice of restoration was never served upon them. It is stated that the plaint was amended on 02.03.1998 but no notice of the amended plaint was served upon Defendants no.1 and 2. The case of Defendant no.1 is also that all the Defendants except Defendant no.1 and 2 colluded and connived with each other to bring the present suit for claiming purported reliefs. It is averred that as a part of the conspiracy, Defendants no.1 and 2 have been kept away from the present proceedings intentionally and fraudulently in order to get a favourable order in detriment to the interests of Defendants no.1 and 2 (Defendant no.2 now deceased). 6. According to Defendant no.1, Defendants no.1 and 2 had never executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. S.K. Bhatia, Advocate and he was never authorised by them to appear in the suit. It is averred that said Mr. S.K. Bhatia even went on to file written statement dated 02.12.2002 whereas Defendants no.1 and 2 could not have filed any such written statement. S.K. Bhatia, Advocate and he was never authorised by them to appear in the suit. It is averred that said Mr. S.K. Bhatia even went on to file written statement dated 02.12.2002 whereas Defendants no.1 and 2 could not have filed any such written statement. It is averred that Defendant no.2 has expired leaving behind a widow, a son and two daughters and no steps were taken for substitution of his legal heirs. 7. It is claimed that in the last week of May, 2013, Defendant no.1 came to Delhi in connection with some work and during his visit to the suit property, it was discovered that some unscrupulous persons have ulterior aim and evil eye on the suit property. It was further learnt that such unscrupulous persons are litigating in the Court claiming themselves to be the purchasers of the suit property with malafideintention on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 8. The application has been contested by the Plaintiff by way of filing a reply. The plea set up by the Plaintiff is that several attempts were made to serve summons upon Defendants no.1 and 2. Summons were sent through the Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar, Dastialso. The clerk of the counsel for the Plaintiff also accompanied the Bailiff in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar but Defendants no.1 and 2 kept away and therefore, they were served by publication dated 14.03.1997 in prominent newspapers, that is, Indian Express, New Delhi Edition, Indian Express, Chandigarh Edition, Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar Edition and Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition. 9. It is stated that a number of lawyers including Ms. Sushma Juyal and Ms. Meenakshi Dogra had filed their vakalatnamaon behalf of the Defendants and many other Advocates appeared on behalf of Defendants no.1 and 2. 10. I have heard Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Advocate for Defendant no.1, who is the applicant herein and has also informed that Defendant no.2 has since expired. 11. At this moment, it will be apposite to refer to the various orders passed by this Court from 26.05.1995 till 20.02.1997. A number of attempts were made to serve Defendants no.1 and 2 by registered post and ordinary process. On the summons issued on 26.05.1995, one Boota Singh, at the given address reported that Defendants no.1 and 2 had shifted to Kang Poultry Farm, Sector 38, Chandigarh. A number of attempts were made to serve Defendants no.1 and 2 by registered post and ordinary process. On the summons issued on 26.05.1995, one Boota Singh, at the given address reported that Defendants no.1 and 2 had shifted to Kang Poultry Farm, Sector 38, Chandigarh. Summons dated 20.07.1995 were then attempted to be served at the address of Kang Poultry Farm. One person by the name of Amrik Singh, who was owner of Kang Poultry Farm informed them that there was no such poultry farm named King Poultry Farm. The summons were then sent on 16.11.1995 when it was reported that Defendant no.2 has left the residence. Again summons were issued on 12.12.1996 which reported that Defendants no.1 and 2 are not residing there. Similarly, on 04.03.1997, summons were received back unserved and thus, an application for substituted service dated 17.10.1995 was moved by the Plaintiff. By an order dated 01.02.1996, the application was kept pending and as stated above, further attempts were made to serve Defendants no.1 and 2 by ordinary process till 26.05.1997. Even when the application for substituted service was moved, the learned Joint Registrar had taken care to get the publication done in the prominent newspapers in circulation in Delhi as well as in Punjab. Thus, the publication of summons was done in Indian Express, New Delhi Edition, Indian Express, Chandigarh Edition, Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar Edition and Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition on dated 14.03.1997. 12. A number of Advocates put in appearance on behalf of Defendants no.1 and 2 from 03.03.1998 till 28.01.2005. I would extract the same as under:- Date Counsels Defendants 03.03.1998 Ms. Sushma Juyal For D1 and D2 07.09.1998 Ms. Anu Mehta For D1 and D2 03.02.1999 Ms. Pinki Anand For D1 and D2 07.05.1999 Ms. Anu Mehta For D1 and D2 01.09.1999 Ms. Anu Mehta For D1 and D2 26.05.2000 Ms. Reema Khurana For D1 and D2 05.09.2000 Ms. Divya Tiwari For D1 and D2 18.10.2001 Ms. Meenakshi Dogra For D1 and D2 19.04.2002 Ms. Meenakshi Dogra For D1 and D2 10.10.2002 Ms. Pinki Anand For D1 and D2 12.12.2002 Ms. Meenakshi For D1 and D2 13.08.2003 Ms. Shashi For D1 and D2 03.12.2003 Ms. Shashi Tripathi For D1 and D2 06.08.2004 Ms. Kiran Arora For D2 only 12.08.2004 Ms. Kiran Arora For D2 only 12.10.2004 Ms. Kiran Arora For D2 only 28.01.2005 Mr. H.K. Sharma For D2 only 13. Pinki Anand For D1 and D2 12.12.2002 Ms. Meenakshi For D1 and D2 13.08.2003 Ms. Shashi For D1 and D2 03.12.2003 Ms. Shashi Tripathi For D1 and D2 06.08.2004 Ms. Kiran Arora For D2 only 12.08.2004 Ms. Kiran Arora For D2 only 12.10.2004 Ms. Kiran Arora For D2 only 28.01.2005 Mr. H.K. Sharma For D2 only 13. In the application, although Defendant no.1 has stated that he never authorised Mr. S.K. Bhatia, Advocate but there is no specific averment that the Advocates mentioned earlier (in the table) were never authorised to appear. Since Defendants no.1 and 2 claim execution of four sale deeds by Late Sardar Sajjan Singh in their favour in the year 1991, they ought to have been in possession of the original Sale deeds, if they had really purchased the suit property. 14. This Court by orders dated 28.01.2014, 27.03.2014 and 01.05.2014 asked Defendant No.1 (applicant herein) to produce the original sale deeds dated 05.08.1991 in the Court. Since the sale deeds were not produced on 27.03.2014, last opportunity was granted to them to produce the sale deeds on the next date, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-. On 01.05.2014, although costs were paid, but further time was sought to produce the Sale deeds. By this time, Defendant no.1 never informed the Court that Defendant no.1 is not in possession of the original sale deeds or that the same have been lost, misplaced or have been fraudulently obtained by anybody. 15. During the hearing of arguments, the learned counsel for Defendant No.1 has handed over a copy of the FIR No.1 2 3 registered in Police Station SAS Nagar, Punjab on 09.06.2014. In the FIR a story has been setup that these sale deeds were handed over to one R.K. Tandon, to get some prospective buyer. It is stated in the FIR that “Since he was close to my son, by reposing faith in him I handed over to him the aforesaid original sale deeds with the hope that he will return the same. After few days, I requested to him to return the sale deeds but he disclosed that the same have been handed over to my son Paramjit Singh, since deceased. On inquiry from my son he said that he has not received the same from him. When contacted, Sh. After few days, I requested to him to return the sale deeds but he disclosed that the same have been handed over to my son Paramjit Singh, since deceased. On inquiry from my son he said that he has not received the same from him. When contacted, Sh. R.K. Tandon, he claimed that he had returned the same to my son but because of him being alcoholic he must have misplaced the same. I have no other option but to report the same to the police by lodging a DDR with regard to the misplacing of the aforesaid sale deeds and I published a public notice in the newspaper. But still I was unable to digest the story/pretence concocted by the aforesaid Sh. R.K. Tandon that the sale deeds had been handed over to my son. Recently I have been approached be one Rajinder Singh, resident of Patiala saying that my two plots lying vacant in New Delhi and he inquired from me as to whether I am interested to sell the same. On my inquiry he disclosed that he came to know about my ownership of the aforesaid plots from Sh. R.K. Tandon, property dealer who in order to satisfy him showed him the original sale deeds of the aforesaid plots.” 16. It is improbable may unbelievable that valuable original title documents would be handed over by Defendant no.1 to a property dealer in the year 1993 to find out a customer and a person will keep quit for over two decades. The four sale deeds dated 05.08.1991 are for a consideration between Rs.1,75,000/- - Rs.1,80,000/- each. In the year 1991, a sum of Rs.7 lacs was not a small amount. How much payment was made in cash, how much by cheque and how much by pay order has not been mentioned in these sale deeds. 17. Not only this, the sale deeds dated 05.08.1991 could not have been executed by Late Sardar Sajjan Singh in the year 1991 as he had already expired on 18.04.1972. All the more, Defendant No.1 should also have been in possession of the previous documents of title, that is, Sale deed dated 12.09.1956. The learned counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were directed to produce the sale deed dated 12.09.1956 in the Court within seven days. 18. All the more, Defendant No.1 should also have been in possession of the previous documents of title, that is, Sale deed dated 12.09.1956. The learned counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were directed to produce the sale deed dated 12.09.1956 in the Court within seven days. 18. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has been able to produce the sale deed on 28.07.2014 but Defendant No.1 has failed to produce the same. Obviously, how could he do so when he is not in possession thereof? Yet, from production of the sale deed dated 12.09.1956, it is established that Defendant No.2’s plea that the sale deeds dated 05.08.1991 were handed over to one R.K. Tandon has to be taken with a pinch of salt. 19. For the purpose of deciding this application, I ought not to have gone into all these questions in detail. This is only to show a palpably false claim raised by and on behalf of Defendants no.1 and 2. Suffice it to say that several attempts were made to serve Defendants no.1 and 2 by ordinary process and that having failed, Defendants no.1 and 2 were ordered to be served through publication in reputed newspapers. They failed to put in appearance. They failed to show sufficient cause that they did not receive the publication. Curiously, Defendant No.1 has given his address as resident of 679, Gali Pipalwali, Maan Singh Chowk, Amritsar, Punjab in the sale deeds dated 05.08.1991 propounded by him which are sought to be cancelled by way of instant suit. The application is completely silent as to when Defendants no.1 and 2 shifted from the address as mentioned in the sale deeds which has also been mentioned in the memo of parties filed in the suit. 20. It is also very strange that though Defendants no.1 and 2 were interested in resale of these plots since the year 1993 and had also given the original documents (as claimed by Defendant no.1 in the FIR) to a property dealer R.K. Tandon, but strangely enough they could not find any customer for more than 20 years. 21. 20. It is also very strange that though Defendants no.1 and 2 were interested in resale of these plots since the year 1993 and had also given the original documents (as claimed by Defendant no.1 in the FIR) to a property dealer R.K. Tandon, but strangely enough they could not find any customer for more than 20 years. 21. In the application, it is claimed that in the last week of May, 2013 Defendant no.1 came to Delhi in connection with some work and therefore, visited the suit property and then it was discovered that some unscrupulous persons had an evil eye on the suit property and wanted to usurp the same. The source of this information has also not been stated by Defendant no.1 (the applicant herein). 22. Suffice it to say that Defendants no.1 and 2 were aware of the proceedings. They were avoiding the process of the Court and were therefore, served by publication. 23. I am of the considered opinion that Defendants No.1 and 2 did pass on instructions to some Advocate to put in appearance but did not execute proper vakalatnamalest they may be caught. The application under Section 151 CPC moved Defendant no.1 (applicant) to join the proceedings is bereft of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed. 24. The matter seems to be very serious as there are certain unscrupulous people who are trying to play with the valuable property assuming that its owner is settled abroad and misusing the process of the Court. The applicant (Defendant No.1) himself made a request for referring the matter for investigation to the CBI. 25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi is required to register an FIR within a period of seven days and to depute a responsible officer to carry out investigation on urgent basis. The investigation shall be supervised preferably by an officer not below the rank of DCP, working in EOW of Delhi Police. 26. The status report shall be filed in the Court on or before 16.09.2014.