The requirement of stating specific particulars with dates and items in cases of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence under Rule 4 of Order 6 CPC is mandatory, and failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The plaintiff is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby her suit came to be dismissed, had filed an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, however, the same was dismissed and now being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below has filed the instant appeal. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the judgment and decree/order passed in Civil Suit No.11/05 dated 22.03.2005 titled as "Parmodh Singh versus K.K.Mehta etc." regarding the alleged agreement dated 27.11.2003 executed between late Shri Parmodh Singh and defendant No.2, K.K.Mehta, regarding the lease of land comprising Khata No.87min, Khatauni No.90min, Khasra Nos. 602/474, 659/476, kita-2, area measuring 11 Kanals and also agreement dated 10.12.2003 for the lease of the aforesaid land are the result of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence and are, therefore, null and void. Therefore, in such circumstances, the plaintiff was not bound by the same in any manner.

3. In alternative, a decree for possession by way of demolition of any super structure/ construction raised over the land by defendants No.1 and 2 was also sought. It was averred that in the year 2002, the health of Parmodh Singh deteriorated to an extent that he was not in a position to move about, much less read or write and remained confined to bed. On 27th November, 2003, defendants No.1 and 2, prepared a forged agreement for lease of land on behalf of late Kishan Chand for about 99 years on rent at the rate of ''30, 250/- per month which was payable by defendants No.1 and 2 to late Parmodh Singh and, thus, the so-called lease would be revisable after the expiry of 99 years at the option of defendants No.1 and 2. As per lease deed, late Parmodh Singh had agreed to transfer possession of land from the date of expiry of lease deed dated 27.11.2003. It was further alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 after the agreement of lease deed dated 27.11.2003 had prepared another agreement of lease dated 10.12.2003 wherein they had sought to change the description of land and also the terms thereof to the ones as mentioned in agreement dated 27.11.2003 and new witnesses were introduced in the subsequent agreement dated 10.12.2003. Both these agreements were prepared fraudulently as late Parmodh Singh had never agreed to the terms as contained therein. It was further alleged that late Parmodh Singh was never ready and willing to execute the agreements and, therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 in connivance with defendants No.3 and 4 kept a close secret regarding these two agreements from Parmodh Singh and his wife i.e. the appellant herein. Defendant No.3, during the lifetime of his father and on his behalf, in connivance with defendants No.1 and 2, had filed a suit against them on 28.02.2005 and thereafter on 22.03.2005 had entered into a compromise with them on behalf of his father Parmodh Singh. It was also averred that defendant No.3 was not competent to file the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff is not bound by the same and likewise she is also not bound by the judgment and decree passed in such suit.

4. Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding locus-standi, cause of action, maintainability, res judicata, estoppel, suit being time barred and not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 4 CPC, were raised. On merits, the entire claim set out by the plaintiff was denied. It was averred that Parmodh Singh during his lifetime had entered into an agreement with the defendants for leasing out the land for purpose of carrying on business of Maruti Dealership in the name and style of "M/s Competent Automobile Company Limited" and on the basis of t