Back
High Court of Delhi
GITA MITTAL & SUNIL GAUR, JJ.
Razia Begum
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Others
R.F.A. (OS) No. 2 of 2014 & C.M. No. 137 of 2014
Decided On : 09-09-2014
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Gita Mittal, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a letter dated March 20, 1993, and subsequent documents related to the possession of a flat were illegal and void. The appellant also sought possession of the flat and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower court agreed and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claims were barred by limitation under Articles 58, 64, and 65 of the Limitation Act. The court also found that the appellant had not sought cancellation of the conveyance deed in favor of the defendant, which was necessary for her to obtain possession of the flat. Additionally, the court found that the appellant's suit was vexatious and manifestly misconceived and dismissed the appeal with exemplary costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to possession of the flat? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant's claims were barred by limitation under Articles 58, 64, and 65 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the appellant had knowledge of the alleged fraud and ouster more than three years before filing the suit. 2. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to possession of the flat because she had not sought cancellation of the conveyance deed in favor of the defendant. 3. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendants because her claims were barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation.
Gita Mittal, J.
1. The instant appeal lays a challenge to a judgment dated 11th October, 2013 whereby the learned Single Judge has accepted the respondent‘s prayer for rejection of the plaint of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the suit of the appellant.
2. The plaintiff had filed the suit which was registered as C.S. (OS) No. 509 of 2011 seeking the following prayers:
“(i) That a decree of declaration with costs may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants declaring that the letter dated 20.03.1993 refer 126 (47) 88/SSS/VK-III dated 20.03.1993 by which the possession of flat No. 4115, C-4, FF, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi aforesaid was handed over by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2 and subsequent documents issued/executed thereafter, as illegal, improper, ineffective, mala-fide and null and void.
(ii) That a decree of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering them to hand over the physical possession of the flat No. 4115, C-4, FF, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the plaintiff.
(iii) That a decree of permanent injunction may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby they be restrained from creating third party interest in the aforesaid flat No. 4115, C-4, FF, Vasant Kun, New Delhi.
3. The defendants were served in the suit. However, only defendant no.4 appears to have contested the same on the 4th of March, 2011. The defendant no.2 had transferred his rights in the suit property to the defendant no.3 who, in turn transferred them to defendant no.4. Thus only the defendant no.4 was effected by the outcome of the suit.
4. Placing reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act, the respondent No.4 Manav Aggarwal (defendant no.4 before the learned Single Judge) filed I.A. No. 5642 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by law.
It was contended that the plaintiff has sought a declaration with regard to documents which were executed more than 15 to 16 years prior to filing of the suit and hence the prayer with regard thereto were hopelessly barred by limitation. Possession of the flat also stood handed over to the defendants in 1993 to the contemporaneous and admitted knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the relief with regard thereto over eighteen years later in 2011 was also barred under the Limitation Act.
5. Notice was issued of I.A. No. 5642 of 2011 to the appellant by the order dated 18th of April, 2011. Despite opportunities, no reply was filed to this application.
6. After hearing detailed arguments on the application, by the judgment dated 11th October, 2013, the court accepted the prayer made in the application seeking rejection of the plaint of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit claim was barred by limitation and therefore, the suit was barred by law.
This judgment has been assailed before us by the appellant by way of the present appeal.
Statutory provisions
7. We may examine the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which concern the present adjudication.
Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC
“11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) to (c) xxxxxxxxx
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
xxxxxxxxx
8. We may for the purposes of convenience set also down the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act as well. A perusal of the above prayer shows that the appellant had sought a decree of declaration which relief is governed by Entry 58 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act which reads as follows:-
Description of suit Limitation Period of Time from which period begins to run
58
To obtain any
Three years
other declaration When the right to sue first accrues.
9. By way of the prayer at Serial No. (ii), the appellant has pra
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
