The Court ruled that a suit cannot be rejected for limitation without trial evidence, reaffirming fraud claims against prior deeds under the Model Code of Conduct are valid if proven, even post-registration.

JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. This civil revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the Order No. 33 dated 7th June, 2022 passed by learned Judge, Commercial Court at Rajarhat, North 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 10 of 2020 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for rejection of plaint.

2. The brief fact of the case is as follows:

(i) The plaintiff-West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in short, ‘WBHIDCO’) initially designed for infrastructural development of the New Town pertaining to major activities in the field of IT industries, housing projects for Middle Income Group (MIG), Lower Income Group (LIG), Economically Weaker Section (EWS), Superspeciality hospitals, Diagnostic Centres, Academic Institutions, Convention Centres, Cultural Hubs etc on 3075 hectares of land situated within 20 kms of the Central Business District of Kolkata and a few kilometers from Kolkata Airport.

(ii) It was felt necessary to allot plots under Chairman’s discretionary quota to those who have not got the opportunity of getting plots but are capable of showing desired performance if the plots are allotted. Accordingly, applications were invited from bonafide individuals, company, traders, developers, industrialists, educational institutions etc. and also for welfare activities benefiting the families belonging to Lower Income Group, Economically Weaker Section/ BPL Group/Backward class/ families of land losers of New Town Project of allotment of plots in New Town, Kolkata under Chairman’s discretionary quota.

(iii) The Board of Directors of the opposite party-plaintiff (WBHIDCO) was reconstituted by the State Government in the year 2011.The reconstituted Board after assuming office found that the policies adopted for allotment of land under Chairman’s discretionary quota by previous management were unconstitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory.

(iv) The Board of Directors of the opposite party-plaintiff (WBHIDCO) decided that the previous allotments made by the earlier Chairman has to be revoked and/or cancelled since such allotment was in violation of the Model Code of Conduct. Various allotments due to prevalence of Model Code of Conduct was cancelled as per the decision taken in the Board Meeting of the Board of Directors.

(v) The petitioner-defendant was amongst the few whose allotment culminated into a registered sale deed in lieu of valuable consideration despite the subsistence of purported minutes of cancellation.

(vi) The opposite party-plaintiff (WBHIDCO) contended that the application of the petitioner-defendant was done fraudulently and the deed of sale was executed in favour of the petitioner-defendant by misrepresentation and fraud. On such basis the opposite party-plaintiff (WBHIDCO) filed the suit being Title Suit No. 10 of 2020 before the learned trial court seeking cancellation of the deed of sale executed and registered in favour of the petitioner-defendant along with other consequential reliefs.

3. The petitioner-defendant entered appearance in the aforesaid suit and filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint on the following grounds.

(a) The plaint is barred by law of limitation. The alleged deed of sale was registered on 21st October, 2011 and the suit was filed on 27th October 2014 which is much after the expiry of period of limitation. Thus, the suit ought to be rejected as per provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code.

(b) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action despite o