Plaintiff Cannot Bypass Limitation Bar By Filing Fresh Suit: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Denial Of Injunction Over Gifted Property

“Proper Course Was To Seek Relief In Pending Appeal Against Rejection Of Earlier Suit”, Delhi High Court firmly rejected an appeal seeking interim relief over a property previously gifted away by the plaintiff. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upheld the trial court’s order denying temporary injunction, holding that the appellant’s attempt to assert possession rights through successive suits was legally untenable, especially in light of the earlier suit having already been rejected as barred by limitation.

The Court ruled that the appellant could not “bypass the order rejecting his declaratory suit by launching a fresh suit over the same property” while his appeal (RFA 341/2024) against the rejection remained pending. The judgment reaffirms that “filing successive suits for the same relief—without awaiting the appellate outcome—constitutes an abuse of process.”

“Plaintiff Himself Gifted The Land, Mutation Was Effected, And Yet Now Claims Possession”—Court Sees No Prima Facie Case

The dispute revolves around 2050 sq. yards of land situated in Khasra No. 940/534 Min, Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, which the appellant admittedly gifted to the respondent by a registered deed on 04.02.2015. Mutation was carried out accordingly. In 2023, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the gift deed was void ab initio for lack of delivery of possession. That suit (CS No. 920/2023) was dismissed on 24.02.2024 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, with the trial court holding the claim barred by limitation and lacking cause of action.

Instead of pursuing appropriate remedies in the pending appeal (RFA 341/2024), the appellant initiated a fresh suit in 2024 for possession and permanent injunction, alleging that the defendant had recently begun unauthorized construction and attempted third-party transfers. An interim injunction was sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which the trial court refused, finding no prima facie case or urgency.

Dismissing the present appeal against that refusal, the High Court observed:

“In the light of Annexure P3 order [rejecting the earlier declaratory suit], the plaintiff cannot succeed unless and until the said order is set aside… The plaintiff ought to have moved necessary application in the said appeal and not filed a fresh suit relating to the same property.”

Successive Suits and Inconsistent Pleas—Court Flags Abuse of Process

The Court took critical note of the plaintiff’s shifting positions across legal proceedings. While the earlier suit challenged the gift deed as void, the present suit attempted to reassert title and possession over the same property, ignoring the trial court’s ruling that the claim itself was time-barred.

Justice Sudha underlined:

“It is admitted by the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property in CS 920/2023 and in the present suit are one and the same… Therefore, filing a fresh suit instead of moving the appellate court is wholly inappropriate.”

The Court found the plaintiff’s approach “procedurally flawed and legally impermissible,” reinforcing that the doctrine of res judicata and the principle of finality in litigation must be respected, especially where suits concern the same subject matter and parties.

“No Irreparable Loss Or Urgency Shown”—No Case Made For Interim Relief

Addressing the merits of the injunction plea, the Court concurred with the trial court’s view that no urgency or irreparable harm had been demonstrated by the appellant.

“The trial court rightly held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case and no urgency, irreparable loss or ground for interim injunction was made out.”

The appellant argued that construction activities by the defendant were prejudicial to his alleged interest, but the Court dismissed this as untenable in light of the registered gift deed and the mutation already done in the defendant’s name.

Appeal Dismissed, Course of Action Lies in Pending RFA

Justice Sudha reiterated that any grievance the plaintiff had should be pursued in the pending Regular First Appeal (RFA 341/2024) arising from the rejection of the earlier declaratory suit. The present attempt to secure relief over the same property via an independent suit was seen as an unjustified parallel proceeding.

“In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications stood closed.

Date of Decision: December 4, 2025