JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

RSA-3409-2010 (O&M)

1. Defendants are in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for mandatory injunction, although dismissed by learned Trial Court, has been decreed by learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.05.2010. Defendants are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for mandatory injunction has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. Both the above said Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved in both appeals are identical. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from, and parties are being referred to as per their status in RSA No. 3409-2010 titled as The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and others vs. Sanjay Kumar.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendants to deliver a free-hold residential development plot of 500 sq.yds. to the plaintiff in view of the fact that his land holding had been acquired by the defendants in the year 1992 for development of Urban Estate, Sectors 19 and 20, HUDA, Kaithal. It was pleaded in the plaint that there was a Policy No. 2-92/2082 dated 18.03.1992 issued by the defendants according to which if there are number of co-sharers in the land which has been acquired and the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefit, determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. Accordingly, applications have been invited in 1992. It was pleaded that plaintiff had applied for free-hold residential development plot vide registered notice dated 20.06.1992 and 12.11.2005 but the defendants had failed to take action on the said applications. Hence, present suit was filed on 15.12.2005.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 inter alia holding that in pursuance to the Advertisement issued by the defendant in the year 1992, plaintiff had never applied for the said plot in prescribed format before closing date; nor plaintiff had deposited 10% earnest money as specified in the advertisement. It was noted that this fact had been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination while appearing as PW1 that he did not deposit 10% earnest money as required. It was further held that the advertisement being of the year 1992, present suit, which had been filed in the year 2005 in respect of a cause of action which purportedly arose in 1992, was also barred by limitation. Consequentially suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008.

5. However, the Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned District Judge, Kaithal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.05.2010 on the ground that as the suit had been filed within a period of 14 years of acquisition, the same was within limitation. Learned First Appellate Court further held that in the Policy itself, it was mentioned that defendant No.3 would offer plot to the oustee according to his/her entitlement under the Policy; and as such, plaintiff was not required to apply; rather the defendants ought to have offered him a plot. On this reasoning, the civil appeal came to be accepted. Hence, present Second Appeal by the defendants.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff is not entitled to plot as he has not applied as per the terms and conditions of the Policy dated 18.03.1992. It is submitted that as per the Policy, the plaintiff was required to deposit of e