A civil suit for declaration can be maintained if filed within limitation after clear infringement or threat; merely judging the referential nature of prior awards does not dismiss the plaint.

JUDGMENT

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-15777-CII-2025

Application is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Exemption from filing the certified / true typed copies of order dated 28.05.2025 alongwith annexures, is granted.

MAIN CASE

The appellants-defendant Nos. 1 to 7, by way of present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity “CPC”) pray for setting aside of an order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”), whereby an appeal preferred at the instance of contesting respondent No. 1-plaintiff against an order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) has been allowed, thereby resulting into dismissal of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint.

[2] For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the same status as was given to them by the learned trial Court.

FACTS

[3] Briefly stating, facts of the case are that in the year 2005, respondent No. 1-plaintiff (MGF Developments Ltd., New Delhi) entered into a joint venture with EMAAR Properties PJSC with the name of EMAAR MGF Land Private Ltd., which was later changed to EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. During subsistence of joint venture, it acquired various parcels of land either in its own name or through its hundred per cent (100%) owned subsidiary companies. The 31.12 acres of land in Village Chauma, Tehsil & District Gurugram was purchased through three of its subsidiaries, namely, M/s. Sparsh Promoters Private Limited, M/s. Sandesh Buildcon Private Limited and Sidhant Buildcon Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Landowning Companies”). In the year 2016, negotiations commenced between the Landowning Companies and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 regarding exchange of aforementioned 31.12 acres of land against 15.12 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Mohammedpur Gujjar, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram which were owned by defendant Nos. 1 to 5.

[3.1] As an offshoot of the afore-stated negotiations, a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction bearing CS-2536-2016 / dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure A-1), titled “Sparsh Promoters Private Limited and others Versus Cosmo Propbuild Private Limited and others” against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 came to be filed by the Landowning Companies with the following prayer clause (Page No. 216 of the paper-book):-

“ It is, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of Justice your honour may very kindly be pleased to pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that till date no concluded transaction of exchange has taken place between the parties; that the transaction of exchange shall-be subject to terms and conditions as mentioned in paragraphs 10B to 10 of the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants restraining the defendants from alienating the land holdings mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the plaint and fully described in schedule appended to the plaint as Annexure 4 situated in revenue estate of Chauma, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, creating any encumbrances over the same and from creating any third party rights of any nature in respect of aforesaid land holdings. The defendants may further very kindly be restrained from making any representation to the public at large with regard to their competence, capability and capacity to transfer valid and marketable title and/or td deliver possession in respect of aforesaid landholdings. Any other relief which this honourable court deems appropriate and suitable may also very kindly be granted to the plaintiffs. Costs of the suit may also very kindly be awarded to the plaintiffs. ”

[3.2] During the pendency of the suit, a compromise dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure A-2) was reached between the parties to the