Shri Shanti Kumar Ramsisaria v. Shri Raman Suri & Others

• ...

¶15* IN THE HIGH COlJRT OF DELHI AT Nl~W DELIII CSt OS) 2209/200<> ' J ud~-:ment dated 12.03.2012 Sl IRI SI IA;\JTI KUMAR RAMSISARIA ..... PlaintilT Through : Mr.S.K. Bhaduri, Adv. versus SI IRI RAMAN SURI & OTIIERS ..... Defendants CORAM: Through : Mr.M.L Bhargava, Adv. for defendants no. I and 2. Mr.Kunal Kohli, Adv. for Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Adv. for DSIDClt)-8. 1101\' Bl .E MR . .JlJSTICL G.S.SISTAI\ I G.S.SISTANI, .J (ORAL) J .A.N 0. 736/20 I 0

¶1This is an application filed by defendants no.l and 2 under Order VII Rule l 1 CPC for rejection of the plaint as being barred by limitation. Pres~nt ~uit ha~ been filed by plaintiff t(w declaration, n•ambtorv ami permanent injunction with the following prayers: ( i) Pc~ss a decree of declaration in lavour of the piaint' !T a:1d against the delcndants thereby declaring that the rbintiff is th~: owner in possession of !;lot br~aring No. 739, me<, sUI :ng 350 sq. meters ~ituatcd in Narel2 Industrial Complex. ~'JarL·]a, Delhi; ( ii) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plainti rr and against the ddendanls thereby d~-claring that the documents dated 15.;)6.1993 i.e. Agreement to Sell, General Pm"'er :)!' /\tt,_:~rncy. Sr-:ci3l Po,ver of A~.torney, Receipt, etc. allcgr~dly executed hy ~hri Cyandender Kumar in l~t\0~1' of ~;hri • - /\shish Jain and Sh./\run Jain and the documents dated

31.03.199~ i.e. Agreement to SelL Cieneral 1\mer or ,\ ttorne;. Special Pcm er of Attorne;. Receipt etc. alleged!: ~.>-:ccutcd h' Shri .'\shish Jain in !~n our of dc!Cndants no. I and = herein. in respect of plot bearing t\:o.7:19. measuring 3:=;0 sq. meters situated in !\arela Industrial Complc\:, 1\:aJ-cla, Delhi. arl..' illegal. null and \ oid and do not cont"cr an; rigl1t. title or imcrcst either upon Shri ,\shish .lain or upon the dc!Cndants no.l and 2 in am manner'' hatsoc\ cr. (iii l Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in Lt,·our of the plaintiff and against the de!Cndants thercb; directing the dckndant no.~ its orJiciaL emplo; ces. etc .. to trans!Cr the plot bearing "\o.739. measuring ]50 sq. mctLTs situated in :\arcla Industrial Comple'.. Narela. Delhi. in the namc/f~l\our of the plainti j'f on the basis C'f the documents e"\cCutcd b) Shri C1; ancndcr Kumar. original allottee of the said plot in l"a\ our or the plaintiff and alrcach submitted \\ ith the de!Cndant nc~.~: ( 1\ ' f>ass a decree or permanent 1n_1unction in l~l\ our of the plainti IT and against the dc!Cndants there b) restraining the de!Cndant no.8. its orlicials. emplo; ccs. etc. from trans!Crring the plot bearing 1\o. 739. mcasunng 350 SlJ. meters situated in Narela Industrial Complex. \Ja1-cla. Delhi. in thl· namc.'f~t\ our of de!Cndants no. 1 and 2 or an: other person. C\:CCjlt in the name of the plaintiff. in the records of U.S. I. D.C.: 1\ ) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in fm our of the J'laintill and against the dc!Cndants thereb; restraining the dc!Cndants no. I and 2. their agents. -;en ants. assigns, nomincL'S. associates or an; other person on their behalf ti·om intcrfcrin~'- in an; manner in the peaccl'ul usc and enjo; ment u!' thL: plot !;caring \:o.73CJ. 111casuring 3)() sq. 1r.ctcrs situated in '\arcla Industrial Complc\.. Narcla. Delhi. b: the plaintiff: ( \;) '\ \\ ard costs or the present suit in !~l\ our or the plainti rr and against the dc!Cndants. , -~ \~ ;1cr the pi~1int. in ~;lc; car 1 CJ96. one Sh.G; anenckr l~umar. predecessor in interest t)!' dekndants no.5 to 7 had represented to the plaintirr that I)Sii)( _ dckndant m).~. had allotted a plot hearing no.T19. measuring 350 sq. mLs .. situated in ~arcla Industrial Complc'<. :\at-cia. Uelhi. (hereinafter rl'll':·!·ed to as the said plot) to him. It \\as ~'lso r•.:presented h\ Sh.CI\ ancndcr Kunl~H ~hat t!1e said plot is li·cl !"rom all sorts or ,·ncumbranccs such as prior sale. mortgdge. ~~in. I ien. C('Url in.iunctions, ~._'tC. Sh.C1; anender Kumar sold the sa1d plot to the plaintiff by e'\ecuting 1 ~tril)US documents includin:,J, an Agreement ~o Sell d~1ted 2'"} .. '7.1996 in Ia, nur or the pL1inti!T a!lcr recci\ ing sale consideration or Rs.2.l)() lakh:-; !"rom 1hc l'lain~i IT The plaintiff is stated 1o ha\ e paid Rs.2.00 lakhs by \\ ~~' o!' a l·hcque :md Rs.90.00()i_ in cash to Sh.Ci; anender Kumar. \I~ ( ~\ cilll'lH_k~· I' L111l<r a]S() l~'\eCuted llllllibcr 01" do..:UillCil~S i--1 !~1\'0,lf or tl1e pLl;ntir:·and handed o,·cr ::~c \C1Cant peaceL_d possession ol the ~aid plot to th~._' plainti If The pla.mi IT thercaller app 1iccJ tel DSI DC. ror trans:"cr of -..he :-.aid plot in hi.-; l"cl\ our and also tendered a ch•.2quc tm\ ards the necessary ci:arg•.':-i. J>lainti IT is also slated to ha\ c raised construction ~)r a shcLi :md II-,: 'i~:ic 1 <.:hed is ileill:,J, used ror the jlllrpose or the l,usincss or the ;)laintJ IT. \ cJ m i tt c ,:J i , . ck k n dan ts 11 o. 1 a 11 d :2 h ad I i k-d a s u i t h c i r. ~ C S ( 0 S ) ;;; 191 1 CJ9X titled a~ --shri Roman .\uri umt /nut her 1·. !J.S.I DC ond OTher.\ .. (hcrcinaller rckrr~d to as 'the earlier suit") \\herein the present pbitnir:· '''-h ~'UTa;ed as dckndant no.-+ and on tl1c basi" u!· a\crmcPts ,n<~d.: i.1 the carliet· s~tit tl1c plaint~rf karnt th~H det"cndanh no. I ar.d 2 arc J:Jimin:,.: title()\ cr tl~c plot. ;n question. Rcle\ ant c.locun<ents in SL!pport or thl'ir title \\ere c1lso tiled IJ, Gclcncbnts no.l ami 2 on 17.:1.:000 in the --aid earlier suit and on gait~ing knc)\\ ledge or the 'iaid documents present ~ui! lw-; hcen lilc~; h' r'Llinti IT :-; .. ·ckin~_ declaration. m<-,ndaton and ;1.· T~'alJ·-'1'1 :njun~..·tJttll. < \r0\1 _'_'l!'1 .'Iii!') l'a:;t' 3 of 13 - \1:·.\l.l .. l3har~a\a. 1 c~::ned counsel for defendant:-, no.l and 2'applicant, ha-' i1!cc! til\.' prc::-,cnt applicJtion under Order Vll Ruk 11 CPC for re.iL'cticn ('1. tbe plaint as being barred by limitation. Placi'lg reliance on ~lll' cerl i lied cop; ~• r tne carl ier plaint filed h; de t'cndants no. 1 and 2 111 the \ e~lr 1 t)t)~ he llas dr~m n the at:ention or the Court 1_() thl· \ L.:mo or Parties \\herein the plainti Jl herein \\as arrayed as dclcndant nt).4 ir: ~he sJid suit. !tic.; til-. SL~hmis.-;ion ( ,· Vlr.Bharga\ ~that the plcsent suit is r~atcntl: halTed );; !imitation. :\lr.Hharga\ ~l submit·~ that the period of limitation \\Ou!d cu,nmcJI-:c ll·om the date Lhc summons \\ere sen ed on the plaintiff in the ·..:arli-.T :c,llit ( Jilccl b; the present applicant) a.nd according!;. the ~~resen: !~laiil~iiT has adn1ittcd the pendenc; or the earlier suit: ond I1Is bcmg a pan; to the ~arlicr SLit. \\ hi-:h \\ ~,u]d shm' that he had kno'' ledge about :he ;1enclenc; of the c·1rlier suit :md. i.hus. \\hilc rei: ing upon ,\nic\cs 56 ;wd ~~ ofthe Limitatilm .\ci. it is submitted that nr:iyers (i) Jnd (ii) ofthc pn·scnt suit a;-c ~1ater,11~. h~llTL'd b; lim;tation <md pra;ers (iii). (i,) and(\') \ i.· ,\ o!"tl1e suit hein~1• barred h: limitalion. ( ·lHlllscl lll''\t submib that statement 111ade b\ Sh.Cyanendcr Kumar is not rckthlc i11 \lL\\ oJ'~hc J~tcl that in ihc \\TittCil SlatCIT'Cnt J!Jcci b\ i·1i111 in the earlier suit ~~_, h~1s st~~~cd tl:at i1e nc\cr sol(~ the propcrt; cit11er to the pre:,cm plaintiff or to Licll:miants no. I and 2 (being r:laintill in th.: -:a:·Jicr ~,uil) o~· tt' Sh ... \shish :ai11. Counsel also submit~ that the caLtSC of action in the Di"e~.~llt suit \\(JU:d arise \\!1Cil dclCndanb 110.] and 2 denied UK titJ.:.'. f 1k· J1;ainti!"l \1r.I3hargma has relied upon Sect;pr ·~·I c( S~eci!ic Relict \·..:t :11 '-L:pp:1rt <·."his p 1ca \\hill·, r,_~ad as ttmkr. ·'Se<.·ti<J!l 3-1 in ·11w "pecifk Relief Act, 1963 l'ug<' ·I 11 f 13 • • _q_ I )iscrction or court as to declaration or status ur rit-',ht.- J\ny person entitled to an) legal character, or to an) right as to any property. ma) institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to den), his title to such character or right. and the court ma\· m its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled. and the plainti IT need not in such suit ask !"or am further ,·c! ie!": J>rm ided that no court shall make am such declaration where the plainti If being able to seck further relief than a mere declaration of Litle. omits to do so. !· . .'-:planation.- J\ trustee of"propert) is a" person i nterestcd to den\" a title ad\ crse to the title or some une '' ho is not in existence. and l()r \\hom. if in existence. he \\Otdd be a trustee."

¶6\lr.S.K.Bhaduri. learned counsel for the ;Jiaintifi/non-applicant. submits tint the present application is de\·oid or merit and is liable to be di:-.missed. It is submitted that cause of action in l~t\ our or the plaintiff am:-.c onh 011 17.3 . .2009 ''hen for the lirst time dc!Cndants no. J and .2, hLil1!-'. plaintiff in thL' earlier suit. tendered the alleged documents signed clnd c\.ccutcd b\ Sh.CJ\ ancnder Kumar in !a\ our or Sh./\shish .lain. \\ ho . . in turn sold the said p:ot to defendants no. l and .2. :\llr.Bhaduri has relied Ll)":''ll the order dated 17.3.2009 passed b) learned J\ddittonal District .Judge itl ~upport of hi~ plea that the rc]C\ ant dOCUlllCiltS Sci\\ the light of the da) for the lir~t time on 17.3 . .2009. Co:m<,c] next submits that any suit lilcd prior to 17.3.2009 \\OI_dd in fact ha\ e been premature as in the ah~cnce or documents the plainti!T could not hmc either sought a dec Lm_ll ion or cancc llati on. l.c~1rned counsel for 1he piainti!T '' hilc placing reliance on the order dated

17.:1.200') passed h) learned :\dditional District Judge c,)ntcnds that the set of documents orthc \car 199:1 \\CIT not lilcd along \\ith the earlier Sllit and the_: did !lOt rorm part of the Jist or dOCUillL'nt:, or C\Cn lind place in the I i~t or reliances '' hich is c\·idcnt rrom reading or the plaint and ( .\, (J.\; _;:;tN :li;IJ') /'age 5 of 13 • aiSL) the order passed D) .\dditional District Judge on 17.l.:2009. Counsel l'unher contends lhatthc question or limitation is a mi:-.ed question or fact and Ja,,. '' hich cannot he decided on an application liled h; dc!Cndants Ill). I clllll ::: under Order \'II Rule 11 CPC and the S<llllL' \\Ould requi:-c pleading'>. issues and l'\ ickncc. In support of this pka. \ilr.Bhaduri has relied up'm the decisions rendered h) the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh B. De ... ;ai & Or.\. ''· Vipin Vadilal /l1ehta and Or ...... reported at 2006 (:1) Ci\ il Court Cases 575 (S.C.) and Ba/.mria Con.\truction (P) Ltd. v. /lanw1wn Sl:'l'lt Trust and Others. reported at ( 2006) 5 SCC 658. Rclc\ ant portion of paragraph 16 of Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. (supra) reads as under: .Iller hcurin,(.l counsd /or !he ;;ortics. uo/1/0 throzwh tlw ,'-. l..., (..., ;;/uifll, LljJt7liL·ution !fJ?der Orela ·; Rule I I (c/, cec und the J<'tdgmc!71.\ nt //7(' trio/ co/11'1 ami the I ligh Court. \t'L' urL· of the OJ7inion thut the jJreseJ?! sui! could not he dismi.'sL'd w horn:d h1 · limi!Cilion \t'itlwul JWuper jJ/ewlings. /roming of un issue of lunitoriun uml!ulcing oj e\·idence. Que.\tiun of limitulinn t\ u mixL'd Cfl/Cs!ion oj/mr LiJ?cl foe! l:'x lucie in the jJU!scn! cosc on the rec~Liing u/ tilt! ;;/oint it UI/7/?0l he hclclthui the suit is horrcd hy l!IIIL'. " K. Par~l ~ of Balsaria Con..,truction ( P) Ltd. (supra) reads as under: ··~.,\Iter hearing counsel for the parties. going through the piamt appl;cation under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC and the judgments of the t1·ial court and the lligh Court. \\e arc o!'the opinion that the prc~cnt ~u1t ~ould not bL: dismissed as barred h) limitation '' ithout proper pleadings. ~'r~~ming ~)j arl iS'SUe of limitdtion and taking of C\·idcnce. ()Lll . .'::-,tion or limll,ltion is a mixed question or Ia\\ and !act. L·..: facie ill the present case on the reading or the plaint it cannot he hl~ld •hat lhc suit is b~nTed h;- time. i'he findings rL'cordcci h; the lligh Colll1 c()Uching upon the mcrit.s or the dispute arc set aside hut the conclusion arri\ ed ~1t h; t:•c lligh Cdurt is arJirmed. We agree\\ ith the , ie\\ taken h) the trial court that a plaint cannot be rejected undc1· Order 7 R ulc 11 (d) o I' the Code or Ci' i I Procedure ... ') u'arnL'd col.lllSL'i lor the ·~lain,ill abu submits that the documents. sought ( \ ) \ .:·_'II' I .'I'll'/ • hl h,· r~,._licd upon h: ckll'ndants no.1 and: (plaintilf" in til~,._· earlier suit), ~u·L· J·or:__>_,.:d and fabricated documents and the rca:-,on ''h) the said doctm1cnb ''ere not li led \\as that the\ ''ere nc\ cr in L\:i:-,tcncc and it is :l,l. I and = in a cbndc.~tinc manner produce th<...'SC docum.:nt..; w gain un~'air t~ch anta~c. Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied c~pon the ;tat-..·mcnt llwdc b; Sh.C1; <mender Kumar \\'herein he has denied ha\'ing an'. relationship '' ith Sh./\.shish Jain to support his plea that the ci(~cumcnts arc lcJr~cd and Elbricatcd. : 1J. l ilct'. c heard counsel l(H· the parties aild also considL'rcd their ri\ a! coJllcntiun:-,. l he ba'-iic !act:, or the p!TSCJJL case arc noi. disputed that one Sh.(.l)ancndcr Kurnar \\a" allotted a plot b) IJSJDC. \\'ltii,~ it i:; the case ('!'ti't~ plain•.i:Tthat this plot \\as sold to her h: Sh.CJ:ancmlc:- Kumar fc1r '. alu~:hk con~;idcratiun attL• jlOS~c'-ision t1.crcor ''as a]c;u lnmlcd m cr to hi111. •t 1'-i th ... · ca·~c of dcfcndams no.1 and .:2 that Sh.CJ,ancndcr Kumar sold t h i " p 1 01 t () s h .. \ s h i s h J a i n all d s h . I\ s h i s il J a i n ru rt 11 c r ~ () k! t h i s pI 0 t to dcl'c:1dants no. 1 and -~ .. \:-; defendants no. 1 and .:2 lc~~rnt that pla:mi iT hc··~·in \\as al~,n cl~limin~ cmncr,hip cntit!cmcn. the) institL1tcd a suit in till' 'car 199~ /t)r declaration. spcci lie pcrlcmllancc and lll<lndatory 111Jlli 1dlon 111 \\hich D~IDC. Sh.C.l\ancndcr Kumar. Sh./\shish .lain and par~1 -1 o!"thL· carii<...T suil dekr,dant·> no.1 and: gmc dctaiis ol'thc chain or documc11ts. a\ ailabl,~ \\ ith them and b) \1 hich ti1c said illOl \'as sold ~o thL'Pl. Para:, ). & :=; or the c:lrrcr sui~ lilccl b\ thL· dckndants ;lo.1 and .~ read:, as under: ·· +. Ill at dc;l:ndant l\o.2 thercaltcr sold the said plo1 to dcfcnda~~t

110.) l)Jl thL' ba<:--is of J>O\\l'r or /\ttOI'llC\ :~)r a tot<JJ sale COJ'.SI(lC!'ation or R:-,.:2.90 ]a . .:s. \.l <li-!JTC!l1eilt to Sell dated 1:-.6.J9CJi. \\aS L'\ .:clltL'd b'. llJI.: dcknda!lL ~o.: Ill l~l\ our or Uckndailt No.3 Pu.f. .. t -of 1.: • conlirming the sale in Lnour of Defcndam No.3. 1\ Receipt dated J ).6. J gen. in the sum or Rs.2.90 Lacs \\as also executed h\· Defendant ~o.2 in l~l\'OUr or Defendant No.3 in token or ha\ ing recei\ ed the said amount in full and Jinal ~ale consideration of the said Plot. fkfendant ~o.2 also e:\ecuted a (lencral PO\\er or ·\ttorne~ dated 15.6.1993. in l~t\ our of Shri ;\run Jain rather of DL:fendant :'\io.3. authorizing him to do all the acts <.md to manage the said propert). :\ \Viii dated 15.6.1993. \v<:b aL;o e\.ecuted by Defendant No.2 in l~tn)Ur of Defendant No.3. /\Iter execution of the al(m?said documents and alter recei\ ing the full sale consideration. the possession of the Plot \\as deli\·ered hv I kiL·ndant No.2 to Defendant ;\Jo.3 on that date itsel r. '"' !hat Shri :\shish .Jain. Dci"cndant No.3. could not do anv business on the Plot 111 question and decided to sell the same. In i\Iarch 199-L the said Shri ;\shish .Jain expressed his\\ illingness for s-:lling the said Industrial Plot. The PlaintifL'-l were interested to et up some Small Scale Industry and therefore. the: negotiated \\ ith dc!Cndant \io.3 for purchasing the aforesaid Industrial Plot. The plainti rr a1 so \ isitcd the site and found that the Plot \\as suitable for doing some llusiness. After negotiations. the Plainti ITs a~reed to ]Xi) to dekndant No.3 a sum of Rs.2.60 I acs for the purchase of the said Plot. !'he said de!Cndant N0.3 agreed to ~ell the plot in !~l\ our of· the Plain~i ITs prm ided the transfer charges \\ ith respect to the plot \\ere also paid by the Plaintiffs to de!Cndant No.I. The Plainti IT" accql1_ed thi'-l r)ITer and paid ~he Sak cc•nsideration to dekndant '\io.3 :mc.1 thcrealtcr De!Cndan1 No.3 C\·~cuted the !"ollm\ lllg documents in 1~1\ our or the plainti JT in wken of ha\·ing sold the said Plot to the Plainti !ls.

(a) Receipt in token or ha\ ing recei\ ed a SL!lll or Rs.2.60 Lac:-, Crom the Plaintiff \ide t\\o Bank Dralts for Rs.l.30 I acs. each dated 31.3.199-+;

(h) .-'\grecment to Sell and Pure has': dated 31.3. i 99c+:

(c) Special !\mer or ,\ttornc\ for Uirtcrent pL•rposes dated 3 1 .3. 199--L

(d) Con-;~.·n: I ette1· :tck1rcssed to the Orticc:·. D.S.I.D.C .. Page 8 of I 1 • \.arela Industrial Comple'\. informing them that he had no objection l()r the transfer or the Plot in J~l\'Our or the plainti If. Since Shri A run Jain, father of the Plainti frs had (sic.) appointed as General /\ttorne: b: the pre\·ious ll\\llcr i.e. Shri ( ;: anender Kumar (I kkndant \:o.2 ). ·1 he Sa ill Shn /\run .lain also l'\:el'Ltted CJeneral Pcm er or /\ttorne: and a Special Pcm er of ,\ttorne' in l~l\ our of the Plainti ITs. Some other documents were also e.\:CCUted b\ Shri. /\shish Jain in l~l\ our or the Plainti Cis in order to sho\\ that he had sold the Plot in question and had recei\-cd the L~ntirL' sale consideration. \Iter recei\ ing the sale consideraticm Shri. ;\shish .Jain deli'. ered the possession or the Plot to the Plaintifl's and this fact \\aS acknO\\ ]edged b) him in the documents e.\.ecuted in I~l\'OUr of the plaint i rrs." I I. Reading or paras 4 and ~ or the earlier plaint, reproduced abm C. \\OUid :-.hl)\\ 11Wl the appliGlllt herein (plaintiff in the earlier suit) t1ad disclosed that ckkndalll no.: ( Sh. C1: ancndcr Kumar) sold the plot to Sh.J\shish .lai 11 n11 the basi·' of a Pcm er of 1\ttornc: for a total sale consideration of R:-..::'.9() lacs ... \n agreement to Sell dated 15.6.199:1. \\as executed by the ckkndant '\o.~: in El\ our of Sh./\sh1sh .Jain conlirming the sale in l~l\ our o( l kkm!ant '\,o.:1 .. \ Receipt dated 15.h.J9CJ3. in the sum of Rs.2.90 I .acs \\as also C'\ecuted 1-)\ Defendant No.2 in l~l\ our or Sh./\shish Jain in token or hm ing J-ccei\·ed the said amount in full and final sale con~ideration or the said Plot. Defendant \lo.2 also e\:ecuted a General ]\)\\ er oJ' \ttorne\ dated 1 ~.(). J l)9:1. in l~l\ our or Shri /\run .lain rather or 'Ji,. \silhh .lain. Juthori/in\2 him to do all the ac1.:-. and to mamwe the said ~ ~ i11·upen: .. \ \Viii dated 15.6.1993. \\as alsc) e.'\ecuted b' Defendant No.2 i11 I'Ll\ our of Sh.:\shish Jain. 1 ~ I he plainti IT in the present suit has acknm\ led_gcd the fact that defendants no ~ <tilL~~: had li1ed an L'<lrii~T ~llii It ,\nuld he usc!'ttl to reproduce paras 5 ( .\10.\) .' .10'' ]I)IJ'I !'age '.1 of 13 • dncl (J of the present plaim: ··.;; That the plaintirr \\as. hm\C\ cr. shocked ~md surprised to rccci\ L' summons !!·om this I lon'blc Court in Suit ~o.51 9 or 1998 titled as -~shri Raman Suri and 1\nother Vs. D.S.I.D.C. & Otilcrs·· a;ld li·om the said ~uit, the plainti IT herein had con~e to kncm that ckkndant; nc.l and ~ had lilcd a suit for det larat;cn. specilic per!(xmancc an .. l mandatory injunction against D S.l.D.C .. Shri (j\ andcndcr K UIT!al·. Shri .'\shish Jain and the plainti rr hc:rcir! and in Lhe said suit. ·.he cL..Jendants no. I and 2 ha\ e claimec~ the follm\ ing rL'! ie :·: ( SrO\; _~_1)1) :'IIIJ'J ( i) Declaring that the plainti ITs Jre bona lick purchase of Plot r\o.739. measuring 350 sq. l'vlctcr~ at NarcL~t Industrial Complex. Delhi. from defendant no.3 (;\shish Jam) and arc en:nlcd to get the plot transferred in their names from defendant no. I: Iii) DeueL' for spccilie r'erformancc of the agreement to sell 111a~ C)L' rasscd Ill fa\ our or the plainti IT ai~cl dga!ns~ the dekndanL no.3 rcqL::ring the defendant no.:i to C.\.eeutc all neccssar: dc~cumcnts affecting the sale JeclJ, com cyancc eked '' ith respect to the said plot and got the same registered b) la\\ in [n our of the plainLiJTs:

(iii) Directing the dcfenclanl Ihl.l ]~~. 111andatur: injunction to tr<-msrcr the plot in question a~ mentioned in clause (a) or pnt) cr clause in fa\ our of the plainti IT (). ·1 hat the plaintiff herein has also lilcd the \Hittcn statement 111 the said suit and has aiso stated that Shri (1\ ~mender Kumar has ~:.!read.: sold the saic! rdot in Lt\ our or l_hc plainti IT hcr-?in a.nd has <llso lilcci nccessar: documents in original before this llon"hlc Court. It i~, ~,ubmitted til<ll e\Cll during the pcncknc;. ui'thc :-;aid suit. a:--, Lhe dci-.?IH.i:mts no. 1 and~ herein \\CIT n:alalidcl) tr_:. ing to claim tlll? nght o, cr tile said plot. \\ hich has actual!: been sold hy Shri Ci:ancnder Kum~tr in !~1\our of the plainti!T. therefore. the plaintiff 1-,crein has mm ~dan application in the sa;d suil before this llon'blc Court for record in~ or the statement or defendant no.2 in that suit i.e. Shri C\ancnckr Kum~ti·. It i:,. hm\c\er. :--,uhn~Jttcd that during Lhe pcndcnc_;. oi' the said applicatiun. t:1c said suit \\a:-,. IJO\\C\er. rransrcrred to the Court df I l·,-.n:ed i\ddition~11 Disu·:ct .r~ldgc. l'ugc /!)of l.l D-.:-lhi, because or pecuniary jurisdiction of that suit. It i:,, hm' ever, subm i Lled that therealier_ the Learned Additional District .Judge was pleased to record the statement or Shri Ci: andender Kumar under Order l 0 or the Code or Ci,il Procedure on 09.0~.200) to the l'ollo\\ ing errcct:- ··j um un olio! lee of Plot .\"o. I 302 meusurin."!, -~-·)() scj .. \leters lit .\urdu Indus trio/ Complex. /Jelhi. ll'hich \\'US Iuter chunged !o !Yiot .\o 739. I hm·e gi1·en the ;}()ssession of Plot \ o. ·--3(; h_; · dulL ndont no. 1. I hod r.:ntu:·ed info un ugreumunt 'o sui! 11"ith dc!endont no.-1 Shri Shunti 1\umu,· umllwd ne1·ur duo!! \l'ilh Sln"i .1shish Join. dc/endunt no.3 /)(!rein in respect o( the suit propurty. I ha1·e ne1·er token uny monuy /rom him nor entured into un agreement to sole (sic sell) H'ith ddendom 1w. 3 .. . ~ In par~1 l ~ or the plaint the plaintiff has a\ erred that the cause of action has :tccnte~.~ in her 1~1\ our and against del'cndants no.l and ~ specifically un 1· .~1 . .2()()() ''hen del'cndants no.· and 2 in collusion'' itn the orticers or 1)~]1)(' l~)r the Ji•·<.;t time brought certain alleged documents being '~'l'._'e!lle! 1 L u~ Sell. PO\\Cr or 1\ttornc~. \Viii. Arlida\it and Receipt all dalccl 15.(>.1993 before the Court. In the light or the submissi~.)!lS made and on the basis or a\ erments made in the plair,t, the qucstio:1 \\ hich arise:: l()r cnnsioerati()Jl is the date when the CH!Se or action has arisen in l~l\ our ol'the p!J.intillto Jile tile present suit. -\ Cd!Tl.ul rcac.llllg (-.;' ~.:cticm ::-.+ c)r the Specilic RelicJ' ;\ct. ICJ63, would sh)\\ tile1t a person i-., entitled to take recourse to legal remedies including tu in~titute a suit against all) person. '' ho denies or is interested to den; hie; title tu such character or right and the Court nny in its discretion grant ~I declaration to such plainti IT. In lll) \ ie\\ the plainti rr gair~cd knm\ ledge th~tt dekncants no.l 'l!ld 2 applicants herein \\erL· den; ing his title J'or the Jir:,l Lime in the ;e<:lr lt)CJX \\hen rlaintitfs recei\ed Sl!l11llll.))lS in the suit. It j~.., cdso not in dispu~~~ tha~ ~'\en l'"~:·ior loth:-; date J)SI])C had addressed a : ' r; \; ~ --;t 'J ~<JtN /'age 1/ of 13 L. I ~ ...:oJnmu:JiC~ltion elated 7.5.1997 to the plaintiff as also to the defendant. Receipt of this communicat:on is mentioned in para 11 of the earlier suit. l)ara 1 1 or the carl ier suit read as under: '"II. ·1 hat in the month of Ma: 1997, t:1e plaintiffs recci\ed a letter dated t ' \-'lay. 1997, from defendant No.I in response to their application da:ed 2c/ 1 /\ugust, 199(L inl(mning the plaintiiT-; that :--.ince there \\et'C more than one person clainJing translCr of the aforesaid plot. the plaintiffs should obtain necessary declaration ll'Oill the competent Court or law to be the persons entitled to the property and the: ''iII process the case further on recei' i llt!, such a declaration. ·1 his letter is addressed to the plaintiff as \\ell as to deiCndants no.3 and 4. It is in these circumstances. that the - plaintills ha\e been compelled to lile the present suit.'. ir1 para ]] of the \\Iitten statement jj]ed lw defendant 110.-~ in the earlier suit ( !llainti If herein) the f~lCtUill or receipt or this COilllllUr,ication has not hec11 c!enicd. Para I I reads as unc.kT ··1 I. ; hat para :\o.l I of the plaint so far as it sUtc<:-- abollt the Jetter or the defendant 110.] dated i 1 !\!Ia\. ] CJC)7. i~; C011C.?n1Cd the same is matter of' record. L\ en othervvise it is subm;tted that as the ailS\\ ering defendant has purchased the J!Wpert) j]·om the defendant 11o.J. the original allottee. therefore the dc!Cndant no. I is liable tc tran:---JCr the piot Ill the name of the ans\\ering_ clclClldant immediateh ... ! (• . .\Jr.Bhaduri ha::-, strong!) urged before this CoLtrt that till such time th: documenh \\ere liled h\ dc!Cndants no.l and 2 he could not ha\e in:-;titutcd the present suit. I lind no force in thi~ submissio11 in ,·ie\\ ofthe litcl tha1 plaintiiThac.! complete knc)\\ ledge about the aloresaiJ doctments, \\hich is C\ idcnt fi·om a bare reading of the earlier plaint tiled by de knuant'> no.l and 2 \\herein all the rele\·ant details of the documents. sought to be cancelled. at this stage \\CIT di\en. ·1 he plaintill\\as actively parti1.:ipating in the earlier :--,uit and had com]'lek kno\\ ledge ailout the fact t!1cil clcll.:ndants no.l ;:md :~ had inst.itutccl a suit for declaration. specific Pnge 1:! of 13 pcrlcmlt:mcc <P ,clmandator) injunction as rar back as in the ) car I ~)9X. l,. !her~._' i-, no quarrel to the proposition that while dealing \\ ith an ,q,plicnion under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the Court must look l!lto the plaint. l he judgments sought to be relied upon h; learned L"C)Uilsel I(H· the platnti 1"1' ar·: not applicable to the rresent case as in this case upon rcaJing or the plaint itscl r makes it cr) stal clear that the plainti rr had knl)\\ ledge al'"'out th~._' pcndenc) ofthe earlier suit which \\as !ilcd in the )Car 1998. In l~t-.'1. ~he plaintiff h<tS extracted the pra)Crs of" the earlier plaint !ilcd by dL·IcmLmh no.l and '2 in the present plaint. \\hich ha\e h~:cn c\traclcd ~!llo\ ~.._·. lla\ inL: rcuard to the fact that the plainti If had kllU\\ lcdL'.c about L ~ ~- Ltle alleged documents since 1998. \\ hich \\ere executed b) Sh.C.i) anender Kllmar in 1~1\0Ur or Sh.Ashish .lain and the said a,leged document'; \·Vere •-.?\;l.'CUtcd b) Sh .. '\shish Jain in !~l\ our or defendants no. 1 ~~nd 2. applicant~ i1crL·in. presenL application ( l.-\.No.7~6'2Ul 0) li\cd h) defendants no.l '\!ld ' l ndcr Order \'II Rule 1: CPC is allm\ed. The suit i~ dismissr.:d being hc1p,:lcssly barred b) li111itation. \1\RCII 12.2012 111-r jo~]