NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2617

I.A. 4395/2022 inCS(OS) 459/2021 Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 17^th January, 2023

Pronounced on:

18^th April, 2023

+

CS(OS) 459/2021 & I.A. 4303/2022

KARAN PAL SINGH

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.

Sudhir

Nandrajog,

Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Preet Pal

Singh, Mr. Aaryan Sharma, Mr.

Madhav Goel and Mr. Shivam

Sachdeva, Advocates

versus

ARC ARORA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defendant

Through:

Mr.

Sanjeev

Sindhwani,

Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Vikas Arora

and Ms. Radhika Arora, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

I.A. 4395/2022 (u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)

1.

The instant application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) on

behalf of the applicant/defendant seeking the following reliefs:

Digitally Signed

By:DAMINI YADAV

Signing Date:19.04.2023

13:19:10

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2617

I.A. 4395/2022 inCS(OS) 459/2021 Page 2 of 16

and circumstances of the case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

The plaintiff has filed the captioned suit for recovery of an amount

of Rs. 7,48,14,740/- (Rupees Seven Crores Forty Eight Lakhs Fourteen

Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty only).

3.

The plaintiff is engaged in the business of development, purchase

and selling of real estate and the defendant company incorporated on 8^th

March, 1978 is engaged in the business of promoting, building,

constructing, etc. having its registered office at 131, Ground Floor, World

Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi – 110001.

4.

The genesis of the dispute between the parties stems from

transaction carried out with respect property on the ground floor of the

“Tower of Arc”.

SUBMISISONS

(On behalf of the applicant/defendant)

5.

Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the applicant/defendant submitted that the captioned suit filed on

behalf of the plaintiff must be rejected at the threshold since, the same is

hopelessly time barred. Moreover, it is argued that the transaction

between the parties dates back to 2014-2015 and the plaintiff/non-

applicant has opted to file after an inordinate delay of more than three

years, as required under the statute.

Digitally Signed

By:DAMINI YADAV

Signing Date:19.04.2023

13:19:10

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2617

I.A. 4395/2022 inCS(OS) 459/2021 Page 3 of 16

6.

It is submitted that according to contentions made by the plaintiff,

the applicant herein allegedly refused to complete the sale documentation

in compliance of the purported oral agreement to sell executed in the year

2015. Thus, cause of action, if any, arose in the year 2015. Therefore, the

limitation to institute the captioned suit as provided under the Limitation

Act, 1963 (hereinafter “Limitation Act”) expired way back in the year

2018. In light of the said averment, it has been submitted that the

captioned suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred and filed in gross abuse

of process of law. It is further submitted that in order to circumvent the

obstacle created by the Limitation Act, the plaintiff fraudulently asserted

that the defendant has shown the money received from the plaintiff as a

liability/advance in his Books of Account. However, acknowledgement,

as provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, for extension of

limitation, should be explicit and unambiguous. The learned senior

counsel to this effect submitted that there is no record of any such

document that demonstrates any admission/acknowledgement of

obligation to pay any outstanding amount to the plaintiff, thereby, such

false and malicious assertions cannot co