The main legal point established is that diligent pursuit of remedies in prior proceedings, the nature of the earlier proceedings, and the possibility of fraud vitiating the decree can justify the filing of a suit and render it not barred by limitation.

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The defendant No. 8 has filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit on 19th September, 2016 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

(a) A decree for declaration that the decree dated 28th July, 2004 passed in CS No. 406 of 1998 (Vandana Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., vs. Smt. Monika Daw & Ors.) is null and void and non est;

(b) The decree dated 28th July, 2004 passed in CS No. 406 of 1998 be set aside and/or cancelled and/or rescinded;

(c) A decree for declaration that the eight several Deeds of Conveyance, particulars whereof are se out in Annexure "D" hereto be adjudged null and void and non est;

(d) A decree for delivery up and cancellation of eight several Deeds of Conveyance, particulars whereof are set out in Annexure "D" hereto;

3. Essential facts constituting the cause of action for filing the suit are:

The plaintiffs have entered into an oral agreement in April/May 1987 with Pranab Chand Daw, the original owner for purchase of 168 Cottahs of land situated at Howrah which is commonly known as Manglahat and has paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards part consideration. The oral agreement was followed by notes being prepared on the said agreement on May 3, 1987 and then again on 15th October, 1987. There are three allayed subsequent letters/notes affirming and even modifying the said agreement being respectively dated January 1, 1993, March 5, 1995 and January 7, 1996.

4. One month after the note of discussion dated October, 1987 the entire Mangla Hat was gutted by fire. Thereafter, within four days the property was requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal. The said requisition proceeding was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing a writ petition as they were at that stage interested to purchase the property. Mimanis on May 16, 1988 were successful in setting aside the order of requisition. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench. The appeal was disposed of on 17th June, 1997 affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. However, in the meantime on 31st March, 1997 the Regulation Act of 1948 had gone out of the statute Book creating a further complication as both Mimanis & Daws claimed resumption of possession. Mimanis' claim was based on alleged agreement for sale and Daws claimed possession on the basis of their ownership. Daws refused to execute conveyance in favour of the Mimanis. This has lead to the filing of suit by Mimanis before the Howrah Court being Title Suit No. 105/2001 on April 20, 2001.

5. In the said proceeding an application for injunction was filed. The trial court refused to pass any such order. In an appeal preferred in this Court, the Hon'ble Division Bench passed a conditional order of injunction on February 12, 2002 which reads:-

"We are therefore of the opinion that if they deposit the balance sum of Rs. 163 lacs forthwith (in cash since Bank guaranteed only generate litigation and conversion of the same into money can never be certain), then they should be entitled to an appropriate and just interim order/reliefs.

After and only after the appellant's deposit of Rs. 163 lacs in cash with the Learned Registrar General of our Court by Wednesday week, there shall be an order of injunction restraining the respondents and especially the Daws, and Pranab Chand Daw, from parting with possession of the said Mangla Hat comprising of 168 cottahs or any part thereof, or entering into any agreement for sale in regard thereto or any part thereof. The order of injunction shall not prevent any of the said above respondents from either collecting money from stall owners or shop owners who are de facto or otherwise doing business on the said Hat/Market, nor prevent them from evicting or inducting such occupants, nor from building any structure on the said land or any part thereof, provided they do it with this understanding that in case the suit is lost their structure might be l