The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit seeking cancellation of a Sale Deed was time-barred and misconceived. The attempt to withdraw admissions of the cause of action was rejected, and the plaintiff's claim of fraud was not supported by the facts.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

The plaintiff has instituted this suit against defendants No.1 to 4 namely (i) New Zone Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Mohan Kumar; (iii) Dharambir; and, (iv) Sub-Registrar-VIB, Alipur, Delhi, for (a) declaration that the Sale Deed dated 7th February, 2013 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 New Zone Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. with respect to agricultural land of the plaintiff bearing Khasra No.44/4 (4-16), 8(4-11), 13(4-16), 18(4-16), 23(4-16), 49/15/6(3-00), 50/9(4-16), 11(4-16), 12(4-16) & 13(0-07) situated in the revenue estate of Village Dariyapur Kalan, New Delhi is null and void and non est owing to having been got executed by playing a fraud on the plaintiff and the Government bodies; (b) mandatory injunction directing the Revenue Authorities to rectify the revenue records / Khatauni with respect to the land aforesaid by including the name of the plaintiff as owner / bhumidar thereof; and (c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the land.

2. The suit came up first before this Court on 25th October, 2016, when though summons thereof were issued but no ex-parte relief sought granted.

3. The suit, besides being accompanied with an application for interim relief, was also accompanied with IA No.13258/2016 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of the delay, if any in institution of the suit. In view of the same, in the order dated 30th August, 2018 it was observed that the said application prima facie showed that the plaintiff also admits the suit to be beyond limitation and which delay could not be condoned. However, on request of the counsel for the plaintiff, the hearing was adjourned to 4th December, 2018.

4. On 4th December, 2018, the counsel for the plaintiff could not even tell which Article of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applied to the suit and again sought adjournment. While granting the said adjournment, it was inter alia recorded (i) that the suit, first filed on 5th September, 2016, thereafter on 19th September, 2016 and lastly on 21st October, 2016 had come up first before this Court on 25th October, 2016; and, (ii) that though the plaintiff was seeking setting aside of Sale Deed on the ground that the entire promised consideration was not paid but had nowhere in the plaint pleaded that there was any agreement that in the event of entire sale consideration being not paid, the Sale Deed would have no effect; attention of the counsel for the plaintiff was invited to Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in this regard.

5. The counsel for the plaintiff again on the next date of hearing i.e. 13th December, 2018 sought adjournment. While granting adjournment subject to costs, it was observed that the defendant No.4 Sub-Registrar, Alipur was not a necessary and proper party and was ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants.

6. The plaintiff has now filed IA No.3327/2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint.

7. I may record that the defendant No.3 Dharambir failed to appear despite service and has been proceeded against ex-parte and only the defendants No.1&2 are contesting the suit by filing a written statement and to which a replication has been filed by the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff has instituted the suit pleading (a) that the defendant No.3 Dharambir is resident of the same village of which the plaintiff is a resident of and has a long past association with the plaintiff; (b) that the defendant No.3 is also carrying on business of a property broker in the name and style of Balaji Properties; (c) that on 19th December, 2012, the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell with the defendant No.3 with respect to his aforesaid land, for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,54,99,999/- and under the said Agreement to Sell, the defendant No.3 was entitled to get the Sale Deed executed either in his own nam