$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 8^th October, 2021.

+

C.R.P. 84/2020 & CM APPL. 35416/2021

SMT. NANDI DEVI MARASINI & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Jasmeet Singh & Mr. Pushpendra

Singh Bhadoriya, Advocates.

versus

SH. CHIRANJIV MARASINI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Mohd. Anas, Advocate (M:

9818729629)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 35416/2021 (for delay)

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the

rejoinder. The delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.

C.R.P. 84/2020

3. This is a revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 7th

August, 2020 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Saket Courts, South East District

(hereinafter “Trial Court”) in CS No. 174/2019 titled Sh. Chiranjiv

Marasini v. Smt. Nandi Devi Marasini & Anr. By the impugned order, the

application

under

Order

VII

Rule

11 CPC

filed

by

the

Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter “Defendants”) has been rejected by the

Trial Court. The case of the Defendants is that the suit filed by the

Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for declaration, mandatory

and permanent injunction and damages was barred by limitation. Hence, the

rejection of plaint was sought before the Trial Court.

2021:DHC:3234

4. The Plaintiff- Mr. Chiranjiv Marasini who is Respondent herein and

the Defendant No.2- Mr. Narayan Prasad Marasini who is Petitioner No.2

herein are real brothers. Defendant No.1 is the wife of Defendant No.2. The

suit arises out of an alleged transaction which is stated to have taken place

between the parties in 2012 by which the Plaintiff had allegedly agreed to

sell the second floor of the Property bearing No. D-66 admeasuring 200 sq.

ft. situated at Vishwakarma Colony, M.B. Road, New Delhi (hereinafter

“suit property”) and executed several documents such as the General Power

of Attorney (hereinafter “GPA”), Agreement to Sell and purchase dated 9^th

March, 2012 etc. in favour of the Defendant No.1. None of these documents

are registered. The sale consideration of Rs.6,39,989/- which was supposed

to be paid in 2012 was not paid by the Defendants. As per the Plaintiff, the

transaction was cancelled by him. As per the Defendants the amounts were

finally paid in 2017/18, when demanded by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff

however, termed the said payment as a unilateral deposit by the Defendants,

and filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The reliefs sought in the suit

are as under:

2021:DHC:3234

2021:DHC:3234

in the interest of justice;”

5. The Defendants sought rejection of the Plaint on the ground that it

was barred by limitation as the initial transaction was of 2012 and the suit

was filed only in 2019.

6. Mr. Bhadoriya, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, submits that there was

a mutual agreement between the parties because of which the consideration

of Rs. 6,39.989/- was not paid immediately upon the execution of the

Agreement to Sell dated 9^th March, 2012, and the said consideration was

duly paid by to the Plaintiff in 2017/2018. On the other hand, the case of the

Plaintiff is that he had cancelled the transaction itself upon non-payment of

the consideration and the documents were demanded back. The further case

of the Plaintiff is that the deposited amount which was allegedly paid in

2017/2018 was unilateral. However, the Defendant argues the contrary.

Admittedly, none of the documents in favour of the Defendants are

registered under The Registration Act, 1908.

7. Mr. Mohd. Anas, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, submits that, on the

strength of the GPA executed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 has gone

ahead and issued another GPA in favour of Defendant No.2 on 15th

October, 2017 and it was registered on 16th October, 2017.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the questi