R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By this notice of motion, the applicant (original plaintiff) seeks various interim reliefs against the defendants. The defendants had raised an issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the affidavit-in-reply filed in this notice of motion and also in the written statement filed by the defendants. In view of the said issue raised by the defendants, this Court by an order dated 23rd August 2010 framed a preliminary issue of limitation under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff entered the witness box on the issue of limitation. The defendants did not lead any oral evidence. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the issue of limitation framed under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are set out hereinunder:-

2. On 27th October 1993, the trustees of Nathulalji Charity Trust entered into an Agreement of Lease in respect of the suit property admeasuring 17960.49 sq.mtrs. or thereabout in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for a period of 3 years and put them in joint possession. (Hereinafter referred to as the 'said Trust'). The said agreement of lease was extended for a further period of 3 years jointly vide writing dated 21st June 1996 and lodged for registration commencing from 1st March 1996. On 11th February 1999, the original defendant nos.2 to 6, the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff entered into a Development Agreement. On 3rd June 1999, the original defendant nos.2 to 6 on one hand and the plaintiff on the other hand, entered into another Agreement on similar terms and conditions as were recorded on 11th February 1999 in respect of the suit land admeasuring 15429.51 sq.mtrs. and gave development rights jointly on the terms and conditions more particularly set out therein.

3. The Charity Commissioner accepted the offer of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and enhanced the total consideration by Rs.2,50,000/- by an order dated 29th August 2000. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Trust by its letter dated 29th August 2000 addressed to the plaintiff confirmed that sum aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff earlier along with interest thereon was adjusted against the additional consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- required to be paid as per order of Charity Commissioner. On 18th October 2000, the advocate for the said Trust addressed a letter to the advocate for the plaintiff forwarding a letter dated 3rd October 2000 received by them from the defendant no.1 requesting for subdivision of the suit land. By the said letter, the said Trust requested that the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 should come to a mutual agreement failing which the trust shall sub-divide the property as per advice of their Architects.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that by its advocate's letter dated 11th November 2000, the plaintiff clarified that the agreement to develop/sale property was joint and there was no question of subdivision on the basis of the amount received on 28th November 2000. The advocate for the said Trust addressed a letter to the advocate for the plaintiff alleging that the property was sold to the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 jointly in ratio of payment made by them to the Trust. The said Trust was interfering with the matter because the payment is delayed. The trust fixed a meeting on 1st December 2000 to sort out differences. On 12th December 2000, the advocate for the plaintiff recorded that a meeting was fixed on 1st December 2000 however did not take place and requested the advocate for the plaintiff to fix a joint meeting of all parties to resolve outstanding issues.

5. On 2nd January 2001, the Solicitor firm M/s. Shaunak Satpute & Co. who was acting for the said Trust issued a public notice in the local newspapers on behalf of the defendant no.1 stating that the defendant no.1 had agreed to purchase the suit property from the trust and invited objections, if any. On 15th January 2001, t