1. This Chamber Summons is for rejecting the plaint as barred by the Law of Limitation. 2. The Chamber Summons is taken out under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. The said Rule runs thus:

11.Rejection of plaint –

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

( a). .....

(b). .....

( c ). .....

(d). where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”.

3. This Suit is stated to be barred by the Law of Limitation. Consequently, the statement in the plaint would have to be read to see whether this Suit appears to be barred by the law of limitation.

4. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the Defendants 1 to 11 on 30th April, 1989. The Plaintiffs were to develop the property of Defendants 1 to 11. The property was tenanted. The Plaintiffs were to settle with the tenants and pay the consideration under the contract. The relevant part of the averments in the plaint read as a whole must be considered parawise.

a) Paragraph 12: no progress could be made with the tenants.

b) Paragraph 13: the Plaintiffs were not in a position to develop the suit premises despite having incurred substantial costs and expenses.

c) Paragraph 15: in July / August 2002 Defendants Nos.1 and 2 considered to develop their properties. The Defendants requested Plaintiffs to relinquish their rights under the agreement dated 30th April, 1989. Certain meetings were held between the parties.

d) Paragraph 16: it was mutually agreed that Rs.11 lakhs be refunded to the Plaintiffs along with the costs and expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the agreement for development dated 30th April, 1989 in consideration of which the Plaintiffs will release and relinquish all their rights and interests in the suit property. The Plaintiffs agreed to accept Rs.11 lakhs by way of settlement. The Defendants have not paid that amount or any part thereof.

e) Paragraph 17: in February, 2005 the Plaintiffs were shocked to see the structure on the suit property having been demolished and a board of Defendant No.13 being put up on the suit property.

f) Paragraph 18: the Plaintiffs called upon the Defendants to stop the construction and that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement dated 30th April, 1989. They claim that the further agreement between the Defendants 1 and 2 and Defendant No.13 is not binding upon them.

g) Paragraphs 18 to 23 show the correspondence between the Attorneys.

h) Paragraph 23: the Defendants have failed and neglected to pay Rs.11 lakhs as per the agreement entered into in August, 2002, which fact was recorded in the Plaintiffs' letter dated 10th June, 2006 stating that the Plaintiffs would adopt proceedings for recovery of that amount.

i) Paragraph 26: takes exception to the Deed of Conveyance executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and Defendant No.12.

j) Paragraph 28: the Defendants failed and neglected to pay Rs.11 lakhs which the Plaintiffs are now not bound to accept. The Plaintiffs claim damages as mentioned therein.

k) Paragraph 29: the Advocate for Defendants assured to pay, but the Defendants 1 and 2 did not pay the said amount.

l) Paragraph 30: the Plaintiffs could not develop the property due to the unreasonable attitude of the Defendants and occupants. m) Paragraph 31: the construction put up by the Defendant No.13 is unauthorised and illegal and without right of development and construction.

n) Paragraph 32: shows the Plaintiffs' right under the initial agreement dated 30th April, 1989 which the Plaintiffs seek to specifically enforce.

3o) Paragraph 36: shows the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs.

p) The rest of the paragraphs show submissions with regard to ancillary reliefs.

5. The Plaintiffs' prayers are essentially two fold: for declaration of the validity of the agreement dated 30th April, 1989, executed 18 years prior to the filing of the Suit and for damages upon the breach of that agreement, which came to be claimed upon the failure and neglect to