The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Collaboration Agreement in the context of the cause of action and the application of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter `CPC'), has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Allow this Petition and set aside impugned order/judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed by Shri Prashant Kumar ADJ-04 (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi in New CS No. 577886 of 2016 whereby the LD. Judge is pleased to dismiss the Application of the Petitioner U/o VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the Plaint and allow the same rejecting the Plaint for the suit barred by limitation.

ii. Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice."

2. The present revision petition is against the impugned order dated 3rd November 2016, passed by the learned ADJ-04 (NW), Rohini Court, New Delhi in Civil Suit bearing No. 577886/2016, whereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) & (d) of the CPC, filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. A Collaboration Agreement dated 26th April 2008, was executed between Late Smt. Shobha Shah (mother of the petitioner) and the respondent. As per the said agreement, the respondent was to demolish and reconstruct the subject property of the suit, wherein, both the parties were to get certain portion of the property after the said construction. Late Sh. Shobha Shah expired on 19th December 2011.

4. The respondent i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court had filed a suit seeking specific performance of the Collaboration Agreement and permanent injunction on 28th January 2014, arraying the mother of the petitioner, Late Smt. Shobha Shah (defendant No. 1 before the learned Trial Court) and her three children as legal heirs including the petitioner i.e., the defendant No. 2 before the learned Trial Court.

5. The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule (a), (b) & (d) of the CPC, on 22nd May 2014, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action, undervalued relief and suit being barred by law. The said application was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 3rd November 2016. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been filed seeking revision against the impugned order dated 3rd November 2016, passed by the learned ADJ-04 (NW), Rohini Court, New Delhi, in Civil Suit bearing No. 577886/2016, whereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) (d) of the CPC, was wrongly dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

7. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the contentions made by the petitioner and also the averments made in the plaint on the fact that the cause of action first arose when the plaintiff realised and acknowledged the non-cooperation from the defendant and thus, the period of limitation began on the date when the cause of action first arose i.e., in July 2008.

8. It is submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, it was the duty of the respondent to get the subject property converted into freehold before seeking possession, which the respondent never did, allegedly for the reason that the deceased defendant No. 1 had not signed the necessary documents on his demand in July 2008 or 2009.

9. It is submitted that the Suit filed by the respondent is after a fragrant delay of five years i.e., since the execution of the Agreement. Further, the cause of action arose when the deceased defendant No. 1 failed to execute the documents as required under the Agreement. The respondent could have filed the suit in the year 2008 seeking specific performance of the Agreement thereby, directing the deceased defendant No.1 to execute documents as required and necessitated under the Agreement.

10. It is further submitted that the learned Trial erred in passing the impugned order. It failed to