$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4^th December, 2024 + C.R.P. 364/2024 & CM APPL. 70647-48-49/2024 THE AMBA DEEP FLAT OWNERS WELFARE SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Mr. Raunaq Bali, Mr. Arunav Sarma, Advocate for the Petitioner Versus

1. AJAY GARG S/O LATE SH. R.S. GARG OFF: FLAT NO. 408, AMBADEEP BUILDING, 14, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI – 110001 .....Respondent No.1.

2. K.K.R. DAS S/O LATE SH. V.K. PILLAI OFF: FLAT NO. 402, AMBADEEP BUILDING, 14, K.G: MARG, NEW DELHI – 110001& ORS.

.....Respondent No.2.

3. VNN FACILITIES HROUGH ITS PARTNERS SITE OFF: AMBADEEP BUILDING, 14, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI – 110001.....Respondent No.3.

Through: Mr. Ajay Garg & Mr. Uday Garg, Advocates for Respondent No.1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ hereinafter) has been filed against the Order dated Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS C.R.P. 364/2024 Page 1 of 15

01.08.2024 vide which Petitioner‟s Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint preferred by the Respondents/Plaintiffs, was dismissed.

2. The Respondents/Plaintiffs Ajay Garg and K.K.R. Das, filed a Suit for Declaration And Permanent Injunction seeking a Declaration that the Petitioner is not the Association of Apartment Owners of Amba Deep, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and that this Society has no right to administer the affairs of the Amba Deep Apartments or to make any demands or enhance the common service Charges or to restrain the Residents from carrying out modifications, renovations in their Apartments in the Building and also for permanently restraining the Petitioners from demanding the charges mentioned in the impugned Invoices dated 15.05.2020, 01.08.2021, 01.01.2021, 01.04.2021 and 01.07.2021 etc. with enhanced rated issued by the society and renovation/modification charges as demanded in letter dated

21.09.2020.

3. The Revisionists herein, filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Suit on the ground of limitation, that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint; and that the Defendant, Amba Deep Flat Owners Welfare Society was a duly registered Society having a right to seek enhanced Maintenance Charges, as per its Memorandum of Association.

4. The learned District Judge dismissed the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by observing that the right to challenge the Constitution of the Defendants/Ambadeep Flat Owners Welfare Society, is a continuing cause of action and is not barred by limitation. The Residents have questioned the Right of the defendant Society to claim enhanced Maintenance Charges and Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS C.R.P. 364/2024 Page 2 of 15 it cannot be held that Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Further, various issues in regard to Constitution of the Society was raised on the ground that they are in contravention of the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 („Apartment Ownership Act‟ hereinafter). The Application under Order VII Rule 11 was consequently, dismissed.

5. The impugned Order has been challenged on behalf of the Revisionists/Defendant on the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation under Article 50 to the Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963. The Declarations could have been sought within three years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action; however, in the present case it has been erroneously observed that there is a recurring cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent. The continuing wrong means that a wrongful act has been done which is resulting in continuing injury recurring/successive wrongs and each wrong gives rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. Reliance has been placed on Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648 to argue that there is no continuing cause of action giving a fresh period of limitation from every date.

6. It is contended that th