The main legal point established is that the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the absence of any mention of a charge in the plaint led to the rejection of the suit as time-barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

amit Bansal, J. - I.a. 5248/2021 (of the defendant no.3 u/O-VII R-11 of the CPC)

1. By this order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking dismissal of the present suit. The main ground taken in the present application is that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. Notice was issued in this application on 12th april, 2021.

3. Pursuant thereto, a reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and rejoinder thereto has been filed on behalf of the defendant No.3.

4. The suit was filed in December, 2020 by the plaintiff seeking, inter alia, recovery of purchase consideration to the tune of Rs.19,06,38,188/-, from the defendants on account of the defendant No.1 transferring 12 Bighas 1 Biswa of land to the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 4th September, 2006, out of which land, 5 Bigha 6 Biswas was with defective title.

5. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are reproduced as follows:

(i) The defendant No.1 is a Company, of which the defendant No.3 is a director. The defendant No.2 ceased to be a director of the defendant No.1 w.e.f. 28th January, 2020 and Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj, the mother of the defendants No.2 and 3, ceased to be a director of the defendant No.1 on account of her death w.e.f. 8th March, 2020.

(ii) Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj conspired to exchange agricultural land measuring 5 Bigha 6 Biswa of high value Deputy Commissioner (DC) land bearing Khasra No. 30/19/2 (1-5) and 20 (4-01) of village Kapashera (hereinafter referred to as the 'DC Land') with her other low value land.

(iii) The Consolidation Officer initially allowed the illegal exchange of the DC Land with the low value land of Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj on 1st December, 1995.

(iv) On the basis of material facts and irregularities pertaining to the low value land of Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj, the exchange dated 1st December, 1995 was cancelled on 11th January, 1996 [18th July, 1996 as noted by this Court in its judgment dated 5th December, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 7687/2004 titled Dy. Commissioner (South West) Kapashera Vs. Ramesh Kumari & Ors.].

(v) This Court in its judgment in Dy. Commissioner (South West) Kapashera (supra) held that the order dated 1st December, 1995 of the CO, resulting in the exchange of the DC Land by Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj, was fraudulent, illegal and void ab initio.

(vi) The appeal preferred against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide the judgment dated 15th January, 2009 and the Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst was dismissed on 24th September, 2009, making the cancellation of the illegal exchange final and binding.

(vii) Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the defendants produced a Sale Deed dated 25th august, 2005, executed by Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj in favour of the defendant No.1 and the Sanction Letter dated 11th august, 2006 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for construction of a motel on the land sold, to defraud the plaintiff into buying the land with defective title.

(viii) The defendant No.1 transferred 12 Bighas 1 Biswa of land to the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 4th September, 2006 for purchase consideration of Rs.18,00,00,000/-, out of which land, 5 Bighas 6 Biswas was with defective title.

(ix) On 7th September, 2006, when the plaintiff filed for mutation of the land, it was intimated to the plaintiff by the concerned authority that mutation of the said land could not be done in plaintiff' name due to pendency of Dy. Commissioner (South West) Kapashera (supra).

(x) The plaintiff made repeated requests to Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj and the defendants for refund of the purchase consideration, however, the defendants fraudulently and maliciously kept misrepresenting that they will refund the payment made by the plaintiff towards to portion of land, which was the subject matter of the illegal transfer.

(xi) after the p