The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period under the Limitation Act, and the principle that possession goes with title.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. By this order, I shall dispose of two RSAs i.e. RSA-265- 2016(O&M) filed on behalf of appellant Sh.K.S. Basi since dead now represented by his legal representatives and RSA-3071- 2016(O&M) filed on behalf of appellant - Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff - M/s Shree Ganesh Oil and Soap Mills, Bathinda through its proprietor Sh.Jagdish Rai Gupta had brought a suit against defendants i.e. Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, Chandigarh and Sh.K.S. Bassi, resident of Bathinda seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is allottee and in possession of Industrial Plot measuring 6000 sq. yards No.A-6, Industrial Focal Point, Dabwali Road, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to the plot in suit) vide allotment letter dated 18.5.1981 and that allotment of that plot by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, void, arbitrary and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, further craving for cancellation of order dated 16.2.1987 and grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from such industrial sheds/plot in suit.

3. As per the version of the plaintiff, it was allotted plot in suit, earlier having No.A-1 but subsequently it was given plot No.A6; that the allotment had been made vide letter dated 18.5.1981 for a sum of Rs.2,34,000/-; that the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 2.9.1978, which was acknowledged vide letter dated 10.10.1978; that the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs.40,900/-, Rs.3,900/- and Rs.2,000/- at the asking of defendant - Corporation and the latter had issued possession letter to the plaintiff on 10.6.1981 and had in fact delivered the physical possession to the plaintiff on 6.4.1981, however due to disturbed conditions in the State of Punjab, the plaintiff could not start the business in the allotted plot; that on 30.11.1992 on public advertisement by the defendant - corporation, the plaintiff approached the defendant - corporation for deposit of the remaining charges along with interest but it refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff and threatened to allot the plot to some other person; that the plaintiff through its counsel had served a registered notice upon defendant No.1 on 30.11.1992 but to no effect. According to the plaintiff, the cancellation/resumption order dated 16.2.1987 passed by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff and allotment of that very plot made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 vide letter dated 27.7.1990 are illegal, void, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction for the reason that no opportunity of being heard had been provided by the defendant - corporation to the plaintiff before doing so. According to the plaintiff, when defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the plot in question, it filed the present suit.

4. On notice, both the defendants appeared and filed separate written statements contesting the suit. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it has taken up various legal objections to wit that since the allotment of plot in question had been cancelled on 16.2.1987 and thereafter the plot was resumed by defendant No.1 on 20.7.1989, therefore suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable; that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and had concealed material facts from it; that the suit was barred by limitation since allotment of plot in question was cancelled on 16.2.1987 and the plot was resumed on 20.7.1989, whereas the suit was brought on 3.4.1993 much beyond the period of limitation, as such was time barred. On merits, the answering defendant admitted that the plot in question had been allotted to the plaintiff and it had deposited Rs.42,900/- and Rs.3,900/- and further that the plaintiff was asked to take possession vide letter dated 10.6.1981, however the plaintiff fail