( 1 ) I propose to dispose of Plaintiffs application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 (I. A. No. 10617/2001) praying for orders against the Defendants restraining them from selling, transferring, alienating, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in plot No. 19, Street No. 7, Sarva Priya Vihar, New Delhi; plaintiffs application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint (I. A No. 10821/2002); and the application of Defendant No. 3under Order VII Rule 11 (I. A. NO. 935/2003) praying for the rejection of the plaint. I shall also dispose of the Suit for permanent injunction.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that an agreement was executed in 1966 between the State, through commissioner, Delhi Administration and four Societies including the Plaintiff, for the development of land admeasuring approximately twenty (20) acres. These four societies, including Mohan Brothers CHBS Limited, plaintiff No. 1, (Mohan Brothers for short) and Sarva priya CHBS Limited, Defendant No. 2, (Sarva Priya for short) constituted a Joint Development Committee of which shri S. P. Gupta, father of Defendant No. 3 was the secretary at the material time. Sarvodaya C. H. B. S. Limited merged with Defendant No. 2 in 1969. Mohan brothers was allotted 2. 050 acres and each of its members has been allotted a plot. It is the Plaintiff s case that Sarva Priya, being the largest Society, enjoyed a dominant position which was also in some measure due to the fact that Shri S. P. Gupta was the Secretary to the joint Development Committee. Plaintiff No. 2 was placed on the Waiting List of Mohan Brothers. It is not in dispute that Plaintiff No. 2 was not an original member and was granted membership on the Waiting List, 20 years after the formation of the Society. It appears that Sarva Priya was alloted 27,438. 58 sq. yds. against its entitlement of 27,882. 66 sq. yds. resulting in a shortfall of 444. 16 sq. yds. owing to which the Lessor had alloted plot No. 7/19 admeasuring 492. 59 sq. yds. to Sarva Priya as far back as on 5. 1. 1985. A Perpetual Sub-Lease Deed of land inclusive of this plot was executed on 12. 2. 1985. The plot was allotted to Defendant No. 3 on 15. 2. 1985. Counsel for the plaintiffs have strenuously submitted that the subject plot has been shown as a disputed one in the records of the DDA, as recently as in 1991. The plaint, however, makes no mention of Mohan Brothers Resolution dated 5. 9. 1989 stating that Plot No. 19 had been allotted to sarva Priya which had paid a sum of Rs. 83,000/- to the dda. The plaint also does not disclose that at the special General Body Meeting held on that date i. e. 5. 9. 1989 Mohan Brothers was to take requisite steps for getting back the value of 48. 43 sq. yds of developed land.

( 3 ) THE first question which has to be decided is whether any cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff No. 2. My attention has been drawn to a previous letter of the Delhi Administration dated 5. 7. 1977, paragraph five whereof states that in no case should the membership in any Society exceed the number of plots available. Reliance has been placed on the directions issued by the Office of Registrar of cooperative Societies (Delhi Administration) on 22. 2. 1984 to the effect that all registered Group Housing societies shall not maintain any Waiting List for the purpose of enrollment of members. It is not disputed that inasmuch as Plaintiff No. 2 had been enrolled as a waiting List Member subsequent thereto, no rights in her favour could possibly have been created. Once this position is arrived at it would be evident that the plaintiff No. 2 does not possess any rights which can be agitated by way of a civil suit/action.

( 4 ) IT has next been contended by learned counsel for the Defendants that the suit itself is barred by limitation, inasmuch as the disputed plot had been allotted in favour of Defendant No. 3 as far back as in february 1985. This allotment was well within t