IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation--Even if, an order is illegal, null and void that has to be got set aside by filing a suit, within the period of limitation--Until and unless, the order, may be illegal, is set aside, the same remains operative.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Amritsar, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2008. rendered by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, vide which it dismissed the appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, house No. 885-A, MIG Housing Board Colony, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, was allotted to him by the defendants (now respondents), vide allotment letter no. PHB-Allot-A-85/10138 dated 02.06.1986, for a sum of Rs. 74,314/- as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between the parties. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25,236/- to the respondents and the remaining amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 832/- PM. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 9197/- uptill 13.08.1988 and thereafter made a default. The defendants moved an application under Sections 4,5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, before the Collector, Amritsar, against him(plaintiff). on 13.10.1989, on the ground, that he failed to pay the instalments, as agreed, and his allotment had been cancelled vide order dated 05.04.1988. It was further stated that this application was dismissed, vide order dated 26.03.1992. It was further stated that after the dismissal of the aforesaid application, the respondents received instalments for the years, 1992 to 1995 and the last instalment of Rs.832/- was received on 02.02.1996. In this manner, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.42,111/-till the filing of the suit. It was further stated that the plaintiff approached the defendants to enquire, as to how much amount was payable to them, so that the entire price of the suit house, may be deposited in lump-sum and the sale certificate be issued in his favour, but they did not pay any heed to his request. It was further stated that the defendants threatened to take possession of the house, in dispute, from the plaintiff. It was further stated that the cancellation of order dated 05.04.1988, was illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. It was further stated that the defendants were asked many a time, to withdraw the illegal order, and to deposit the balance amount of the price of the house, in question, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

3. The defendants, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing joint written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties- and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. It was admitted that the house, in question, was allotted, in favour of the plaintiff, but he made default, in payment of instalments and did not adhere to the terms and conditions, contained in the allotment letter. Accordingly, the allotment was cancelled, vide order dated 05.04.1988. It was denied that the defendants were receiving the amount of instalments, from the plaintiff, for the years 1992 to 1995 and the last instalment of Rs. 832/- was paid on 2.2.1996. It was further stated that the plaintiff had deposited the alleged amount, on his own, without demand. It was further stated that since the allotment had been cancelled, the alleged amount, in question, was not required to be deposited by the plaintiff. The filing of petition, under the Public Premises Act and dismissal thereof, was admitted. The remaining averments, contained in the plaint were denied, being wrong.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed by the trial Court --

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for - OPP

2. Whether the cancellation order dated 05.04.1988 passed by the defendant is illegal, null and void against the principle of natural justice - OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintain