The suit was not tenable due to the bar created by Section 571(1)(b) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Act, as it was instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

JUDGMENT :

A very peculiar, but a very interesting question, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present second appeal would precisely be based upon the plaintiff’s own case, which was developed by him in Original Suit No.585 of 2017 Col. Anil Kumar Kak vs. Nagar Nigam Dehradun & Ors. Particularly the reference here would be required, would be as to what impact would the impleadment of defendant no.2, would have for the purposes of interpreting the implications of Section 571(1) Sub Section (b) of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 as now applicable in State of Uttarakhand, under the provisions of the Regularization Act.

2. The modulation of the relief, which is foundationed of the suit; is based on the pleadings raised in the plaint, admittedly and as per the pleadings raised by the plaintiff himself in para 8, the notice for taking an action was issued by him against defendant no.1 & 3 only on 03.05.2013, through his Advocate, in relation to the disputed property, which was lying in Khasra No.198/B (198/168), Rajpur Road, Block-1, Dehradun. In case if the said part of the pleading of the said para of plaint is taken into consideration, in fact, the notices of 03.05.2013, which has been reiterated in the pleadings in para 9, the cause of action is shown to have been issued to defendant nos.1 to 3, is contrary to the pleadings itself raised in para 8. In the suit in question, the plaintiff has formulated the relief in the following manner. The relief as sought for before the court below is extracted hereunder, including the description of property given at the foot of the plaint:-

;g fd oknh vius i{k esa rFkk izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 3 ds fo:} fuEufyf[kr izfrdkjksa dh vkKfIr gsrq izkFkZuk djrk gS&

d& izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 3 dks vknsf’kr fd;k tkos fd dze'k% izfroknh la[;k 1 o 3 oknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 4 ds LokfeRo dh lEifRr Hkkx ftldk iw.kZ fooj.k okn i= ds vUr esa fn;k x;k gS] ls fufeZr lMd dUdzhV] iRFkj] jksMh] lksfyax bR;kfn gVkdj mDr Hkw&Hkkx dk okLrfod fjDr dCtk oknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 4 dks lkSai ns vkSj izfroknh la[;k 2 dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og voS/kkfud :i ls yxk;s x;s fctyh ds [kEcks dks oknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 4 ds LokfeRo dh Hkwfe ls f'kV djsa] ,slk djus esa foQy jgus ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk voS/k :i ls fufeZr lMd dUdzhV] iRFkj] jksMh] lksfyax bR;kfn gVkdj ,oa fctyh ds [kEcs gVkdj lwph lEifRr esa of.kZr mDr Hkw&Hkkx dk okLrfod fjDr dCtk oknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 4 dks fnyk;k tkosA

[k& izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 3 dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk }kjk oknh ds LokfeRo dh lEifRr la[;k 198@ch ¼198@168½] jktiqj jksM CykWd&1 ¼mRrj½ nsgjknwu ds Hkkx tks fd 12 QhV pkSMs izkbZosV ,izksPk jksM ds :i esa fo|eku gS] ij Øe'k% fdlh Hkh izdkj dk iqu fuekZ.k djus] lMd fodflr djus ,oa fctyh ds [kEcs yxkus o fctyh ykbZu lwph lEifRr esa of.kZr Hkwfe ls gksdj vkxs ysdj tkus ls LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk }kjk fuf"k) fd;k tkosA

x& okn ds leLr O;; oknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 4 dks izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 3 ls fnyk;k tkosA

?k& mijksDr izfrdkjksa ds vfrfjDr vFkok ,ot esa vU; dksbZ izfrdkj tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; okn dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mfpr le>s oknh dks izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 3 ls fnyk;k tkosA

Lkwph lEifRr Okknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 4 ds LokfeRo dh lEifRr la[;k 198@ch ¼198@168½] jktiqj jksM CykWd&1 ¼mRrj½ nsgjknwu ds Hkkx tks fd 12 QhV pkSMs izkbZosV ,izksPk jksM ds :i esa fo|eku gS] ftls fd layXu ekufp= esa vaxzth v{kj A, B, C, D ls n'kkZ;k x;k gS] ftldh lhek,a fuEuor gSa&

Ikwjc es & eq[; lMd] jktiqj jksMA

Ikf'pe es& lEifRr vU; tks fjDr voLFkk es gSA

mRrj es & 'ks"k lEifRr o fjgk;'kh Hkkx oknhA

nf{k.k es & lEifRr vU;A^^

3. The suit was instituted only on 27.11.2017, and for the aforesaid relief of granting a decree of mandatory injunction for the removal of the structure, as well as for possession. The suit was instituted on 27.11.2017. These two dates i.e. about issuance of notice on 03.05.2013 and the cause of action which was described by the plaintiff itself in para 13 of the plaint being 0