The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a new suit under the Specific Relief Act despite the dismissal of a previous suit, and the determination of cause of action against the defendants.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

IA Nos. 1388/2007 and 4939/2007

1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above two IAs moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

.2. The plaintiffs in the instant suit are husband and wife. They had filed a suit before learned Additional District Judge under Section 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act contending therein that in pursuance of sale transaction with defendant No.2, who was a G.P.A holder of defendant No.1, they became owner of property No. 8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi after payment of full sale consideration and execution of agreement to sell, GPA, Special Power of Attorney by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiffs. The vacant physical possession of suit property was delivered to the plaintiff on 12th May 2004 and plaintiffs after taking possession had put their locks on the property. It was contended that after entering into the sale transactions and handing over the possession, defendant No.1 and 2 colluded with each other and they also colluded with sisters of defendant No.1 and in order to deprive the plaintiffs of the property so purchased, trespassed the property. Plaintiffs discovered this trespass when plaintiffs visited the property on 24th July, 2004 Plaintiffs filed a suit for passing of a decree directing defendants to vacate the suit property and to restore back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Simultaneously, prayers were also made for passing a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12th May, 2004 on the ground that the sale consideration has already been paid to the defendant. Along with this prayer, a prayer for mesne profits @ Rs.15,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of the property by the defendants was also made and another prayer for passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants and their agents, family members from selling, alienating or parting with the possession of the property was made. This suit of the plaintiff was dismissed at initial stage on an application of defendants made under Order 7 Rule 11 by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the plaintiffs had not disclosed to the Court about execution of a collaboration agreement dated 18th May 2004 between defendants No.2 and the plaintiff. Statement of plaintiff was recorded by the learned ADJ under Order 10 CPC. The plaintiff had stated that the signatures on the agreement dated 18th May 2004 appeared to be his, but he was not aware how the defendant obtained his signatures on the documents. Learned Additional District Judge further observed that the plaintiffs by not producing and disclosing the execution of collaboration agreement had tried to overreach the Court and was guilty of withholding the information of this document and thus played fraud on the Court and dismissed the suit on this ground. Against this order, the plaintiff had approached this Court by way of an RFA No. 631 of 2004 This Court observed that since the suit was filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover the possession on the ground the respondents were trespassers, no appeal would lie from the order or decree passed in such a suit in view of Section 6(3) of Specific Relief Act. This Court, however, considered the appeal on merits and held that appellant approached the trial court with uncleaned hands and suppressed the material and relevant facts and dismissed the appeal. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff preferred an SLP before the Honble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court passed following order : The petitioners herein had filed a Suit purported to be under the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act. However, in the said Suit the petitioners had prayed for grant of permanent injunction or in the alternative recovery of possession or in the further alternative a decree for specific performance of contract. Such a Suit was not maintainable in