The court affirmed that a suit for cancellation of documents is barred by limitation if not filed within three years, and the issue of limitation is a matter of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner before this Court is one of the plaintiff in Civil Suit bearing CNR No.PBSA02-000492-2017 titled as "Anil Kumar and others v. Jasveer Singh and another". He is aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure P-16) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the plaint has been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the application moved by the defendants. Under challenge is also the order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-18), whereby Civil Appeal No.66 of 2024 (CNR No.PBSA01-002179-2024) filed by the plaintiffs against the aforesaid order was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that plaint has been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is despite the fact that the dispute related to the genuinity of the impugned allotment letters, was continuously pending before the Consumer Fora since 2008.

3. The case as pleaded by the plaintiffs Anil Kumar and others in the plaint (Annexure P-5) is that one of the plaintiffs (Anil Kumar) was abducted by defendants (respondents herein) and some other unidentified persons on 09.07.2006, regarding which FIR No. 183 dated 26.09.2007 was registered at Police Station, Zirakpur under Sections 364-A, 382, 420, 467 IPC etc. It had been alleged in the FIR that during his kidnapping period, the defendants alongwith other accused had snatched his various documents including original sale deed of various properties etc. at gun point and had obtained his signature and also that of his wife on various blank papers on the letter heads of company of plaintiff No.1 and on some blank papers forcibly under the fear of death. The forged and fabricated allotment letters were later on recovered during the investigation of FIR No. 183 (supra).

3.1 On the other hand, in 2008 the two defendants filed separate complaints before the District Consumer Forum at Chandigarh seeking refund of the amount as deposited by them allegedly with the plaintiffs for allotment of the two flats and that the possession of the two flats had not been delivered to them. Those consumer cases were contested by the petitioner on the ground that these were based upon the forged and fabricated documents. The District Forum dismissed the consumer complaints as filed by the defendants-respondents, holding that the allotment letters were not adequate to prove the payment of deposit and allotment of flats vide order dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P-2). However, the State Commission vide its order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeals, as filed by the consumers/ defendants/respondents herein by relying upon the allotment letters.

3.2 In the meantime, in the criminal case as lodged on the complaint of the petitioner, the defendants as well as other accused were arrested and separate challans qua them were filed from time to time. The respondents were acquitted of the charges on 24.03.2015 by the trial Court. The appeal as filed by the petitioner against the acquittal was dismissed by this High Court on 29.03.2017 vide Annexure P4 and it was opined that even if the accused were convicted, the petitioner would have to approach the Civil Court to declare the alleged draft allotment letters as forged and fabricated.

3.3 It is contended that subsequent to the observations made by the High Court, petitioner filed the present civil suit against the defendants for setting aside the draft allotment letters to be forged and fabricated documents.

3.4 In the meantime, against the order of the State Consumer Commission, appeal was filed by the petitioner before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where issue of jurisdiction was formulated on 25.07.2018, as to whether the dispute pertaining to the forgery of the documents could be determined through summary trial under the 1986 Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act.

3.5 The present civil suit as filed by th