Delhi District Court
Through Its Power Of Attorney vs Vice Chairman on 23 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI,
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE,
DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI.
CS NO. 257/12
UNIQUE ID NO. 02406C0181972012
SMT. BASIRAN
W/o Late Allahmehar,
R/o Village Arakpur Bagh Mochi,
Nanakpura, New Delhi.
Through its Power of Attorney:
Mr. Abbul Hasan,
S/o Chanda Shah,
R/o Town Plankhua, Distt. Panchsheel Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh. ........... Plaintiff.
Vs.
1. VICE CHAIRMAN
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi-110023.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LANDS)
Delhi Development Authority,
'A' Block, Room No. 6,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi-110023.
CS No. 257/12 Page No. 1 of 5
3. DEPUTY ASSESSOR & COLLECTOR
South Zone, R. K. Puram,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Assessment and Collection Department,
South Zone, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. .........Defendants.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.07.2012
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 23.07.2013
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.07.2013
O R D E R
(23.07.2013) Vide this order, I shall dispose of contention of counsel for defendants as to whether plaint in the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
1. In the plaint filed by plaintiff, it is stated that plaintiff was running his Tea Stall and was forcibly evicted from property comprising Chullah Tax No. 15, 17, 26 & 75 (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property") by DDA. It is stated that as per register of Chullah Tax, 1940, Chullah Tax Nos. 15, 17, 26 & 75 are bonafide properties of progenitors and ancestors of plaintiff who is legal and rightful heir of her ancestors qua these properties. It is stated that due to partition and Hindu Muslim Riots, family of plaintiff was compelled to leave India for Pakistan. It is stated that some miscreants and land grabbers grabbed suit property.
2. It is stated that entire property comprising of 915 sq. yds.
CS No. 257/12 Page No. 2 of 5was grabbed illegally by Sopan, Prabhati, Bhaju, Bhupan and Ramphal. It is stated that aggrieved by this act of these people, plaintiff Mr. Abdul Hassan got information vide RTI Applications. It is stated that during partition mother-in-law of plaintiff Smt. Basiran was deprived of suit property by above mentioned land grabbers and that when after few years, father and other family members of Smt. Basiran returned to India, they found suit property to be occupied by these land grabbers. It is stated that plaintiff and Smt. Basiran made several representations to concerned authorities for redressal of her grievance but to no avail. Plaintiff has prayed for passing decree for mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants by directing defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to plaintiff or to compensate in terms of present rate of compensation as notified by Govt. of India.
3. On last date of hearing, counsel for defendants argued that present suit is barred by limitation. Counsel for defendants further argued that present suit has not been filed in proper form and that present suit should have been filed for possession and not for mandatory injunction. From last date of hearing, matter was adjourned for arguments on maintainability of present suit.
4. I have heard arguments addressed by respective CS No. 257/12 Page No. 3 of 5 counsels and perused the record. Both the counsels admitted that Order in the present case can be passed only under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
5. Plaintiff in her plaint has mentioned that she was running a Tea Stall from the suit property and that she was forcibly evicted from suit property by DDA. Later on plaintiff in her plaint has stated that some miscreants and land grabbers grabbed suit property at the time of partition when she and her family left India and went to Pakistan on account of Hindu Muslim Riots. In later part of the plaint, plaintiff has stated that suit property was grabbed by Sopan, Prabhati, Bhaju, Bhupan and Ramphal. Plaintiff has taken two different stands in plaint filed by her. At one place, she says that she was evicted from suit property by DDA and at other place, she says that some land grabbers grabbed suit property at the time of partition. The fact that plaintiff has stated that she was running tea stall from suit property also appears to be irreconciliable as she has not stated that as to in which period, she was running tea stall from suit property. Limitation for filing suit of mandatory injunction is three years from the date on which cause of action arises and period of limitation for filing suit of possession is 12 years from the date when possession of defendant becomes adverse to plaintiff. In case, plaintiff was dispossessed from suit property during CS No. 257/12 Page No. 4 of 5 partition, limitation would have expired long ago (present suit was filed by plaintiff in the year 2012). Plaintiff has not mentioned any date and year when DDA forcibly evicted her from suit property. No benchmark of date and year has been specified by plaintiff when she was forcibly evicted from suit property. In these circumstances, it is difficult to gauge as to when cause of action for filing present suit arose in favour of plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff during course of arguments admitted that present plaint has not been filed by plaintiff within period of limitation. In these circumstances, case of plaintiff squarely falls within purview of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Plaint filed by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation (to be specific under Limitation Act, 1963). Plaint filed by plaintiff is liable to be rejected therefore. Accordingly, plaint filed by plaintiff is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 23.07.2013 Sonu Agnihotri JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS No. 257/12 Page No. 5 of 5