The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 and the precedents to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned pending application being I.A. No. 14668/2013 filed by the applicant/defendant No. 7 for rejection of the plaint being time barred, under Sub-Rules (a) & (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that initially, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, possession as well as for mandatory and permanent injunction against 7 defendants. By order dated 30th May, 2012, the name of defendant No. 7 – North Delhi Municipal Corporation was deleted. As per the case of the plaintiffs, Late Sh. Trilok Chand Grover, grand-father of the plaintiffs and father of the defendants, died intestate. He was the owner of the suit property bearing No. V-246, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi which was purchased by him by a registered sale deed in 1966. His wife has already expired and his mother has also expired. Now, there are only four sons and three daughters of Sh. Trilok Chand Grover, who are entitled for 1/7th share each in the suit property. Out of those, three sons, namely, Tej Kishan, Prasad Kishan and Pyara Kishan have expired. So, their legal heirs have been impleaded as defendants No. 2A & 2B, plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. The fourth son, namely, Mr. Surinder Kishan Grover is alive and he is in occupation of the suit property who is defendant No. 1 herein.

3. It is submitted that out of three daughters, one Raj Sachdeva has expired; her husband has also expired; so, her legal heirs have been impleaded as defendants No. 4A, 4B & 4C. The other two daughters, namely, Smt. Swarna and Smt. Shoba are alive; so they have been made as defendants No. 5 & 6.

4. The main thrust in the suit is that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 6 inherited 1/7th share each in the suit property, which the defendant No. 1 is refusing to partition and give the respective shares to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ father late Sh. Prasad Kishan Grover was asking about his share to defendant No. 1 but he used to avoid the partition by postponing it for one or the other reasons. After the death of Sh. Prasad Kishan Grover, his legal heirs, i.e. the plaintiffs (three daughters) were asking defendant No. 1 and others to partition the property as well as to give their share, i.e. 1/3rd out of 1/7th to each of them or 1/3rd in the property together to the three daughters of Sh. Prasad Kishan Grover, but defendant No. 1 is avoiding and postponing the same. However, in March, 2012, defendant No. 1 assured them that the suit property would be partitioned after some time. The plaintiffs realized that defendant No. 1 is avoiding the partition of the suit property and in fact, he has no intention to do so. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application being I.A. No. 1676/2013, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading one Chandeep Singh Bhatia as defendant No. 7 and also under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for allowing the amendment of the suit accordingly. It was stated in the application that defendant No. 1, Mr. Surinder Kishan Grover while filing the written statement has alleged that the suit property has been reconstructed and after being so reconstruction by collaborating, he has also the first and second floor of the property in favour of said Chandeep Singh Bhatia by virtue of sale deed executed by defendant No. 1. In the written statement, defendant No. 1 has claimed that the suit property was inherited by him, as Sh. Trilok Chand Grover has left a Will in his favour. The plaintiffs in the amended plaint also sought a declaration that the said sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 7 in respect of first and second floor of the suit property be declared as null and void.

6. The said application was allowed by order dated 15th April, 2013 and Mr. Chandeep Singh Bhatia was impleaded as defendant No. 7 who has subsequently filed the present applicatio