RSA No.91/2015 Page 1 of 6

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA No.91/2015

Date of Decision : 13.03.2015

SHRIMATI ANGOORI DEVI …… Appellant

Through: Mr.Devraj Singh, Adv.

Versus

SHRI M.B. TIWARI & ORS.

… Respondent

Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J (ORAL).

1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against

order dated 7^th November, 2014, by virtue of which, the order of

the Civil Judge, rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff-appellant under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been upheld.

2. I have heard Mr.Devraj Singh, the learned counsel for the

appellant. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for possession and

permanent injunction has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge

as well as the learned Appellate Court erroneously by taking the

RSA No.91/2015 Page 2 of 6

period of limitation not from the date, when the respondent tried

to register the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2003 and the

subsequent agreement dated 7/9.09.2005.

3. It is contented since the respondent-plaintiff sought to

register the agreement only some time on 10.01.2011 that is the

day when ‘cause of action’ accrues to him and, accordingly, the

plaint was within limitation. For this purpose, the learned counsel

has placed reliance on two judgments Rukhmabai Vs. Laxminarayan

Ors., 191 (2012) DLT 454.

4. I have considered the submission and gone through the

judgments.

5. At the outset, I must state that the two judgments, which

have been relied upon by the appellant, are not at all applicable to

the facts of the case. The Apex Court in Haryana Financial

Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 834 case

has categorically stated that before a principle of law laid down in a

particular judgment is made applicable to any case the Courts must

RSA No.91/2015 Page 3 of 6

co-relate the facts in the context in which the law has been laid

down with the facts of the case in which it is sought to be applied.

It has categorically observed that the application of law is not to be

done like a mathematical proposition. There is no co-relation

between the facts of the case, which have been relied upon by the

appellant with the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, the

judgments cited have no application.

6. In order to see the correctness of the concurrent finding

rejecting the case of the appellant, it would be suffice to mention

that the appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that agreement

dated

22.12.2003

and

the

subsequent

agreement

dated

07/9.09.2005 be declared as null and void as the same were against

the provisions of law. A decree for permanent injunction was also

sought against the defendant No.1, seeking a restraint that

defendant No.1 should not register any sale deed executed by the

defendant Nos.2 and 3 and defendant Nos.2 & 4 be restrained from

transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest.

RSA No.91/2015 Page 4 of 6

7. A perusal of the aforesaid reliefs would clearly show that the

declaration, which was sought by the plaintiff-appellant, was the

principal relief, while as permanent injunction was only a subsidiary

relief to the main relief.

8. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11

CPC raising objection regarding the maintainability of the plaint on

the ground of the same being barred by limitation. The trial Court

accepted the plea of the respondent-defendant and the said plea

was