Jayant Nath, J.

1. This is an application filed by defendant No. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit as barred by law.

2. It is the contention of the applicant that the present suit is hit by Article 56 of Schedule 1 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act. He submits that the documents under challenge in the suit are required to be challenged within three years from the date of its execution. Hence, it is stated that the suit for cancellation of the two documents is hopelessly barred by limitation on the face of it and cannot be entertained.

3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration declaring letter dated 20.03.1993 by which possession of Flat No. 4115, C-4, FF, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was handed over by defendant No. 1-DDA to defendant No. 2 as illegal, null and void, a decree of possession for the said flat against the defendants and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants pertaining to the said flat.

4. The brief facts which have led to the filing of the present suit as stated in the plaint are that a self-financing scheme was floated by defendant No. 1 in 1982. The plaintiff got herself registered on 10.06.1982. She was declared successful in the bid held on 31.12.1987 and defendant No. 1 sent a demand-cum-allotment letter at her address at 472, Chitla Gate, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. It is stated that thereafter, the plaintiff lost original papers relating to the said flat including the demand letter. Hence, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with P.S. Jama Masjid on 17.01.1990. A request was made on 19.01.1990 to DDA for issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter. On 05.03.1991 a draw of lots was held and the plaintiff was allotted the suit property. She further claims that she did not receive the demand letter of the 5th and final instalment.

5. It is further alleged that defendant No. 2 was a close friend and was having cordial relations with the husband of the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff went out of station in the month of February, 1990. The plaintiff was in the need of money. She requested defendant No. 2 for a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. Defendant No. 2 gave the said loan. Further it is stated that as the officials of defendant No. 1 were harassing the plaintiff, on the assurance of defendant No. 2 that he would sort out all the problems, the plaintiff executed attorney in favour of defendant No. 2. Later on when the husband of the plaintiff came back, both the plaintiff and the husband got suspicious as no communication was received from DDA. It is stated that later on, they came to know that defendant No. 2 had played a fraud and got executed other documents also in his favour to usurp the flat of the plaintiff and the said defendant No. 2 in connivance with the officials of defendant No. 1 got issued the demand letter of 5th and final instalment at his own personal residential address and also got issued the possession letter in his name at the aforesaid address. When the plaintiff came to know about the fraud being played by defendant No. 2, the plaintiff got cancelled the said deed of attorney and other documents which were got fraudulently signed by her in the absence of her husband. It is further stated that on 30.09.1993 a letter was sent to the Deputy Director of defendant No. 1 regarding revocation of the deeds and defendant No. 1 was requested to desist from entertaining the claim of any person with respect to the suit property. A legal notice was also stated to have been served on defendant No. 1. It is further alleged that the defendants 1 to 4 have colluded with each other and in collusion and in connivance with each other, got forged further documents showing that the plaintiff sold the flat to defendant No. 2 by the said forged documents. Thereafter, it is stated that various applications were made under the RTI Act to DDA for the information and for giving appropriate records.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for de