$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 229/2023 & I.As. 6702-03/2023, 6705/2023, 6707-08/2023, 10854-55/2023, 20266-68/2023 Reserved on: 22^nd August, 2024 Date of Decision: 16th December, 2024 M/S OCKLEAF DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Barnali Paul and Ms.

Hardikaa Kalia, Advocates versus RAM AVTAR AGGARWAL (THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) & ORS.

.....Defendants Through: Mr. Suhail Khan, Mr. Farid Ahmed Khan, Ms. Vratika Mittal and Mr.

Junaid Khan, Advocates %

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present suit has been filed by M/s Ockleaf Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff Company), thereby, seeking a decree of possession and permanent injunction in its favour and against the Defendants qua property bearing N- 128¹, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi [‘suit property’]. The Plaintiff Company has relied upon the sale deeds dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011 to substantiate its claim of ownership over the suit property.

2. In pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the predecessor bench of this Court, the matter was listed on 22.08.2024 for arguments on

1 Prayer clause ‘A’ in the plaint refers to property bearing No. N-27, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi,

which is admittedly an error and the said property is not the subject matter of this suit.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA CS(OS) 229/2023 Page 1 of 17 the maintainability of the present suit.

Submissions on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2

3. Mr. Suhail Khan, learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that that the present suit, which was re-filed on 06.04.2023 could not be instituted and maintained as the Plaintiff Company has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies [‘RoC’] vide Notice No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated 08.08.2018 published on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India.

3.1. He stated that the Master Data of the Plaintiff Company as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs also reflects the status of the Plaintiff Company as "Strike Off". He stated that the Director Identification Number [‘DIN’] status of both the Directors of the Plaintiff Company i.e., Mr. Ram Dilawri and Mrs. Swarna Dilawri also shows as "Deactivated due to non-filing of DIR-3 KYC". He stated that therefore, the affidavits filed by Mr. Ram Dilawri holding himself out as a Director of the Plaintiff Company are incorrect and misleading. He stated that neither the Plaintiff Company nor its Directors are competent to swear any affidavit for or on behalf of the Plaintiff Company.

3.2. He further stated that the present suit in not maintainable, as the alleged documents relied upon by the Plaintiff Company herein, which forms the basis of Plaintiff Company’s title over the suit property have already been declared null and void vide Judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned ADJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi [‘District Court’] in the Civil Suit No. 208149/2016. He stated that the said civil suit was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs therein).

3.3. He stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA CS(OS) 229/2023 Page 2 of 17 present suit be dismissed as not maintainable by this Court.

3.4. He submitted that though the Plaintiff Company has preferred an appeal before National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi [‘NCLT, Delhi] for restoration of its name on the Register of RoC and however, even if the Plaintiff Company is restored, the same would not make the suit maintainable in light of the judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Ld.

Civil Judge.

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff

4. In response, Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company, was not aware of the ‘Striking off’ Notice dated 08.08.2018 issued by the RoC, resultant of which the Directo