VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. This Appeal lays siege to the Order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant’s Suit pursuant to an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short). We have summoned the Trial Court records and have heard the matter in complete detail.

2. The Plaintiff has already filed two applications seeking amendment to the Plaint which were rejected by the High Court and against which he has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court without success. It is not in dispute that the third application for amending the Plaint was pending but remained unadjudicated at the time when the Suit was dismissed. We desist from giving a detailed account of the litigation as it will make this Judgment needlessly prolix. However, it is germane to mention that the learned Single Judge had, by Order dated 19.11.2008, framed as many as nine Issues; had granted the parties an opportunity to file List of Witnesses within three weeks; had directed the Plaintiff to file affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief; and had further directed the Joint Registrar to fix the dates for cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s Witnesses. On that date, all other pending applications had been posted for hearing on 23.11.2009. The impugned Order came to be passed on 22.12.2010 consequent upon the filing of an application under Section 151 of the CPC by the Defendant. We think it relevant to mention that the Defendant had also previously filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC which was rejected. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant submits that that application related only to the question of limitation. Even if that is so, it seems to us that the principle of issue estoppel would preclude the Court from entertaining another application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC based on the same factual matrix. In other words, if it was the Defendant’s contention that the Plaint ought to have been rejected on the ground that there was material suppression of relevant facts, that argument ought to have been ventilated under the said application.

3. We will now briefly state the facts of the case. However meticulously hard we may endeavour to abjure from articulating a view on the facts in contention, it may not be possible to completely succeed on this score. We must, therefore, state that any appreciation of facts that we may voice would only be prima facie in nature and should not influence the mind of the learned Trial Judge.

4. The Plaintiff has filed a Suit for Specific Performance in respect of three Receipts-cum-Agreements dated 16.6.1993, 11.12.1993 and 11.1.1995 respectively. It is noteworthy that the Plaint proceeds on the premise that possession of the property is already with the Plaintiff. The Written Statement does not traverse this position. The Plaintiff had also approached the Revenue Authorities under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for being declared as a Bhumidar and for correction of Revenue records asserting his possession, and even in these proceedings the Defendants have not challenged the Appellant’s possession. It also transpires that the Plaintiff had, inter alia, filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction from interfering with his possession of the Suit land and for an order restraining the Defendants from entering into the Sale Agreement with any third party.

5. The first application for amendment to the Plaint was allowed by the learned Single Judge opining that “though there is a variation or inconsistency regarding the nature of the claims sought to be introduced ……the ends of justice require the same should be allowed”. The Defendants had filed an Appeal against the Order which came to be accepted by the Division Bench. It was observed by the Appellate Court that there was no suppression of material particulars and that a period of three years had elapsed between the filing of the Plaint and the preferment of the applicati