INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The application filed by defendant No.2/Indian City Properties Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been dismissed by the impugned order.

2. The present suit was a suit for declaration, possession, permanent and mandatory injunction. It was filed on behalf of three plaintiffs i.e. the two children and the widow of late C.P. Singh.

3. The case as set up by the plaintiffs is that late Sh. C.P. Singh was the owner of property No. 124, Queens Way now known as 124, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). He remained the owner and in possession of the suit property till his death on 31.12.1984. The plaintiffs are the surviving legal heirs of deceased and have inherited all rights, title and interest of late C.P. Singh (who had died intestate) including the suit property. It was only around 22-23.07.1994 that the plaintiffs were informed by one of their lawyers handling their legal matters that there was some case relating to their father and the NDMC pending in the High Court which led to inquiries to be made by the plaintiffs who pursuant to these inquiries learnt that the suit property had been acquired by their late father in his lifetime; further inquiry effected on 27.02.1995 from the L & DO revealed that Sh.M.L.Ahuja (original defendant No.1) had been dealing as an attorney of late C.P. Singh and on 17.08.1957, the suit property had been registered by the appellant in favour of the appellant. The fact of the death of late C.P. Singh had been intentionally suppressed from the L & DO who had effected this registered lease deed in favour of the appellant in the absence of this knowledge. Para 4 of the plaint specifically avers that it was only at that time that these facts came to their knowledge which included the fact that C.P. Singh had acquired rights of ownership in the suit property and he had remained in possession of the suit property till the time of his death on 31.12.1984. Legal notice dated 14.02.1996 was sent to defendant No. 1 to which he had replied vide a reply dated 23.02.1996. Further averments in the plaint being that the defence set up by the defendants in the reply was that C.P. Singh in his lifetime had sold his interest in the suit property to the appellant and the lease deed dated 05.08.1957 had been signed on behalf of C.P. Singh and Company (a partnership) by I.S. Anand who was acting on behalf of C.P. Singh and Company. Paras 8.4 & 8.8 of the plaint are relevant. They are bordered on the submission that no request was ever made by C.P. Singh in his lifetime to get the lease deed effected in favour of the appellant; there was no partnership firm by the name of C.P. Singh and Company; the question of C.P. Singh having sold his interest in the suit property to the appellant did not arise; a fraud has been played by defendants No.1 to 4 upon C.P. Singh and in pursuance of this fraudulent claim this partnership appears to have been formulated under the name of C.P. Singh and Company; it was a sham and nothing but a collusion between the defendants; there was no question of assignment of any right by the partnership firm in favour of the appellant; defendant No. 1 was not authorized to act as an agent qua the suit property. All these acts of the defendants were on account of mis-representations made by them; being wrongful and malafide; the whole objective of the defendants was to perpetuate a fraud.

4. The cause of action has been depicted in para 13. It reads herein as under:-

“13. That the cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff in or about Jan/Feb.1995, when the Plaintiffs for the first time came to know about the fraud perpetrated as stated by Defendants No.1 to 4 and on or about February 1995, when the Plaintiffs pursuant to their Advocate’s visit to the L & D.O. Office came to know for the first time that Defendant No.6 had on a