JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--The present suit for recovery has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.2,09,13,750/-.

2. The brief background of the dispute is that the Defendant No.2 was the owner of land measuring about 66.53 acres situated at Bara Hindu Rao/Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Various agreements were entered into by Defendant No.2 (DCM Ltd.) in respect of the said land. A tripartite agreement dated 24th November, 1988 was entered into between Defendants No.1 and 2 and Ansal Properties and Industries. As per this agreement, DCM Ltd. appointed Defendant No.1-Kailash Nath & Associates to jointly undertake and execute the construction of flattened factories and residential flats in the said project. None of the said agreements are subject matter of the present suit.

3. The Plaintiff booked five flats measuring about 400 sq. ft. each in the DCM Techno Plaza. The full consideration was paid for the said booking. Five provisional booking agreements dated 20th December, 1995, 21st December, 1995, 22nd December, 1995, 23rd December, 1995 and 26th December, 1995 were entered into. The payments of the following sums were made by the Plaintiff.

A total of Rs.49,50,000/- was paid by means of five cheques issued by the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the payments being made, five agreements to sell dated 2nd April, 1997 were entered into and the flats were to be handed over to the Plaintiff within a period of 66 months, which period ended in June, 2001.

4. Admittedly, the project did not take off and no construction was made as there were disputes between Defendants No.1/2 and M/s Ansals Ltd. The Plaintiff was informed of the said disputes, and the factum of the settlement having taken place only vide letter dated 27th July, 2001. The Defendant No.1 had collected a large sum of money from various persons including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff addressed letter dated 12th January, 2002 to Defendant No.2 enquiring the status of its booking. While the Plaintiff continued to follow up, it was informed that Defendant No.2 had entered into an arrangement with Defendant No.3 wherein the entire land has been transferred to DEIL Limited. The Plaintiff submits that the agreements to sell dated 2nd April, 1997 were not honoured and accordingly since the project may not even commence in the near future, it decided to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

5. In the said complaint filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, order dated 30th August, 2013 was passed dismissing the complaint as the same was hit by Sections 21(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of this order, the present suit has been filed seeking recovery of the sums paid, along with interest.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of Defendants No.2 and 3, the main ground that is taken is of limitation. Apart from the same, various justifications have been given to justify the delay in construction in the construction of DCM Techno Plaza which was re-christened as Central Square. Insofar as the factum of payment is concerned, the same is not denied but it is submitted that there are other formalities etc. which have to be completed Plaintiff. The execution of the agreements to sell dated 2nd April, 1997 is not denied.

7. The suit was instituted on 18th January, 2014. Vide order dated 19th April, 2017, a Learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering the application filed under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and an application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the Defendant obser