JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. These applications are filed by defendant nos. 11 and 12, defendant nos. 4, 3 and 19, respectively, under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) for rejection of the plaint. The suit is filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to all the benefits in lieu of the construction carried out by them under the slum rehabilitation scheme, and, in the alternative, prayed for the handing over of the constructed area. The plaintiffs also prayed for monetary compensation in lieu of the construction carried out and prayed for damages in terms of the construction carried out and the cost incurred by them. The plaintiffs have bifurcated their prayers regarding their entitlement, based on the original agreement appointing them as the developer. According to the plaintiffs, they are subjected to and victimised by fraud and conspiracy by the defendants and that they are illegally removed as the developer in the slum rehabilitation schemes and a blaklisted developer is appointed.

2. The applications are filed on the grounds that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is barred for non- compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“the said Act”) and the suit is barred under Section 42 of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”). Additionally, defendant nos. 11 and 12 have raised an objection of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

3. The plaintiffs were appointed as developers for three slum societies. According to the plaintiffs, in view of the defendants' inter se conspiracy and fraud, the plaintiffs were removed as the developer, and defendant no. 4 was appointed as the new developer. The plaintiffs have alleged fraud against the directors of defendant no.4 and the officers of the slum authorities. It is alleged that these defendants have fraudulently and with malafide intention colluded to remove the plaintiffs as the developer and illegally appointed defendant no.4 to substitute the plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 is the State Government, defendant no.2 is the chairman of the High Power Committee constituted by the government to enquire into complaints regarding slum, rehabilitation schemes and defendant no. 3 is the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”). The remaining defendants are private parties and companies involved in the development of the slum rehabilitation scheme in question.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.4

4. Learned senior counsel for defendant no.4 submitted that pursuant to the pleadings in the plaint, the cause of action to file the suit arose on 3rd October 2018. Hence, the suit had to be filed within three years, i.e., before 2nd October 2021. The exemption period due to Covid-19 restrictions would not apply, as the limitation period expired between 15th March 2020 and 28th February 2022. Hence, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the benefit of only 90 days from 1st March 2022. Hence, the suit should have been filed before 30th May 2022. Therefore, the suit filed on 11th September 2023 is barred by limitation.

5. On the point of non-compliance with Section 12A of the said Act, learned senior counsel for defendant no.4 submitted that in view of the pleadings in paragraph 44 of the plaint, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any benefit on the ground that the provisions of Section 12A of the said Act would not apply. To support his submissions on the applicability of bar under Section 12A of the said Act, learned counsel for defendant no.4 relied upon the decisions in Deepak Raheja Vs. Ganga Tao Vazirani, 2021 SCC Online Bom 3124, Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr.,(2025) 9 SCC 424 and Yamini Manohar Vs. T.K.D. Keerthi,(2024) 5 SCC 815.

6. Learned counsel for defendant no.4 subm