The main legal point established in the judgment is that a second application for the same relief is not maintainable unless there is a change in law, facts constituting a new cause of action, or fraud.

1. By this order, I propose to decide the third application filed by the plaintiff, bearing I.A. No.9770/2011 filed under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 & 3 CPC.

2. It is the admitted position that the plaintiff’s earlier applications, both under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC bearing I.A. No.4897/2007 & I.A. No.7083/2008 were dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010 and the ex-parte injunction order granted on 11.08.2008 was vacated.

3. The said order was passed by the Court after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order, bearing FAO(OS) No.117-18/2011 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty was granted by the Division Bench to dispose of the above-mentioned application being IA No.9770/2011 without being influenced by the impugned order. The parties were also granted liberty to raise their all respective contentions. Thus, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the present application is maintainable on the grounds of fresh cause of action and the same be disposed of. The Plaintiff’s Case

4. The plaintiff filed the present suit under Sections 31, 33 & 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration, and in the alternative, claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs.82,16,000/- from the defendants apart from other reliefs.

4.1 It is alleged by the plaintiff that she is the lawful owner of a flat bearing No.B-47, Upkar Cooperative Group Housing Society, situated in Plot No.18, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091 which she purchased for a lawful consideration of Rs.7,90,000/- from defendant No.1, vide registered sale deed dated 09.05.2005.

4.2 The plaintiff submits that the defendant No. 2 had issued a No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.2003 in favour of defendant No.1 and consequently, the said flat was allotted in her favour. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got the said flat registered in her favour. The said property was then converted from lease-hold to free-hold vide registered deed dated 24.08.2004 making the defendant No.1 the absolute owner.

4.3 Defendant No.1 now being the absolute owner of the said property and being in possession thereof entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff and executed a Sale Deed dated 09.05.2005 and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property.

4.4 The plaintiff submits that while she was away from the country in 2006, the defendant No.2 took illegal possession of the said flat, in connivance with defendant No. 1. Thereafter defendant No. 1 & 2 started claiming that defendant No.1 had, in fact, ceased to be a member of the Society and hence not entitled to the said flat. The plaintiff states that there is absolutely no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendant No.1 had conveyed a deed in favour of plaintiff, by the title paramount and

4.5 There were no proceedings initiated qua cancellation of the said Sale Deed and a duly registered document cannot be superseded or become non-existence by an executive action/order and in the absence of a registered document.

4.6 The plaintiff also submits that the communication dated 16.3.2007 on the face of it is null and void and is any event an outcome of connivance of defendant No. 1 & 2 as the flat in question continues to be vested upon the plaintiff as she is the lawful/legal owner as she had got the flat legally and with proper procedure. Defendant No.2-Society has no right over the same and in illegal possession of the said flat.

4.7 Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief. Ex-parte order granted on 11.08.2008 and was vacated vide order dated 20.09.2010 after hearing the parties.

5. While dismissing the interim applications filed by the plaintiff, the Court has dealt with submission of the parties and given its findings in paragraphs-15 to 20 of the order which are against the plaintiff. The same read as under:-

“15. The contenti