Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Nandi Devi Marasini - Appellant
Versus
Chiranjiv Marasini - Respondent
C.R.P. 84 of 2020 & CM Appl. 35416 of 2021
Decided On : 08-10-2021
The issue of limitation in a suit must be evaluated based on mutual understandings and requires factual evidence, not dismissed outright.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Revision petition challenging the rejection of application for plaint rejection on the grounds of limitation - The Court emphasizes that the issue of limitation must be assessed in light of mutual understandings and agreements, requiring evidence to substantiate claims. (Paras 5, 8)
(B) Parties involved in a transaction must establish mutual consent and the terms of their agreement. Evidence is crucial to substantiate claims regarding payment and cancellation. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The suit arose from a purported transaction from 2012 concerning the sale of property; the Plaintiff claimed cancellation, while Defendants argued payments were made subsequently. The Plaintiff filed the suit in 2019, citing the transaction's nullification prior to that date.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the issue of limitation cannot be dismissed outright and must be evaluated with evidence regarding mutual agreements.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the Plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation given the dates of the transaction and the filing of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the argument regarding bar of limitation necessitates evidence of mutual understanding, indicating that it should not be decided without a hearing.
Result: Revision petition disposed of with directions for the Trial Court to frame the issue of limitation to be addressed post-evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and parties' relations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments about the transaction and payment. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. limitation assessment based on evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. disposal of revision petition with directions. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 35416/2021 (for delay)
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the rejoinder. The delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.
C.R.P. 84/2020
3. This is a revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 7th August, 2020 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Saket Courts, South East District (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No. 174/2019 titled Sh. Chiranjiv Marasini v. Smt. Nandi Devi Marasini & Anr. By the impugned order, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter "Defendants") has been rejected by the Trial Court. The case of the Defendants is that the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction and damages was barred by limitation. Hence, the rejection of plaint was sought before the Trial Court.
4. The Plaintiff- Mr. Chiranjiv Marasini who is Respondent herein and the Defendant No.2- Mr. Narayan Prasad Marasini who is Petitioner No.2 herein are real brothers. Defendant No.1 is the wife of Defendant No.2. The suit arises out of an alleged transaction which is stated to have taken place between the parties in 2012 by which the Plaintiff had allegedly agreed to sell the second floor of the Property bearing No. D-66 admeasuring 200 sq. ft. situated at Vishwakarma Colony, M.B. Road, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property") and executed several documents such as the General Power of Attorney (hereinafter "GPA"), Agreement to Sell and purchase dated 9th March, 2012 etc. in favour of the Defendant No.1. None of these documents are registered. The sale consideration of Rs.6,39,989/- which was supposed to be paid in 2012 was not paid by the Defendants. As per the Plaintiff, the transaction was cancelled by him. As per the Defendants the amounts were finally paid in 2017/18, when demanded by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff however, termed the said payment as a unilateral deposit by the Defendants, and filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The reliefs sought in the suit are as under:
"a) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby ordering the cancellation of the purported transfer documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA, etc., all dated 09.03.2012 and the GPA dated 17.10.2017 in respect of the suit property executed illegally by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, after declaring the same as null and void, in the interest of justice;
b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and hand over to the plaintiff the possession of the suit property i.e. second floor of the built up property bearing No.D-66, Vishwakarma Colony, M.B. Rod, Delhi-110044, admeasuring 200 sq. yards and more particularly shown in the red colour in the attached site plan, in the interest of justice
c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their assignees, servants, executors, etc., from misusing the aforesaid documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA, etc., all dated 09.03.2012 and the GPA dated 17.10.2017, in any manner whatsoever for entering in any further transaction or for creating third party interest in the suit property or any part thereof or for any other purpose whatsoever, in the interest of justice
d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, letting out, disposing off, mortgaging, encumbering or from creat
