Delhi District Court
Ms. Ishleen Kaur vs Smt. Maneesha Parekh on 31 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADJ07, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided By: Mr. Jay Thareja, DHJS
Civil Suit No: 10629/16
Ms. Ishleen Kaur
D/o. Sh. H. S. Sethi,
R/o. E54, Lajpat NagarI,
New Delhi110024.
Through attorney Sh. H. S. Sethi
S/o Late Sh. Santokh Singh, General Attorney,
R/o E54, Lajpat NagarI, New Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Maneesha Parekh
Proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy,
W/o. Sh. Ambrish Parekh,
R/o. 30, Gate No.7, Mandakni Enclave,
Alaknanda, New Delhi110019.
.....Defendant
SUIT FOR INJUNCTIONS AND RECOVERY OF MONEY
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.07.2014
DATE OF RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT : 28.04.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 31.05.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff/landlady (henceforth 'plaintiff') has filed this suit against the defendant/tenant (henceforth 'defendant'), seeking reliefs of mandatory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction, recovery of arrears of rent and Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 1 of 17 recovery of damages/mesne profits w.e.f. January 2010. The exact prayer made by the plaintiff, in the plaint of this suit, is reproduced below:
"It is therefore prayed that (i) Decree for Mandatory Injunction be passed against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff thereby directing the defendants to handover the vaca (sic) and physical possession of second floor of premises no. K103AB, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi, to the plaintiff, i.e., 6 Cabines, Fans and Fittings and Fixtures etc and to remove his air conditions from the suit premises.
(ii). Decree of Permanent Injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from parting, alenating (sic) the suit premises to any one.
(iii). Decree of recovery of Rs.1,98,000/ as rent and damages charges be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs of suit. The defendants be directed to pay damages/means profit for use and occupation from the Jan.2010, at Rs.99,000/ pm. Any other relief which the court deems proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
2. In order to justify the grant of the aforesaid reliefs, the plaintiff has interalia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that the plaintiff is the owner/landlady qua the second floor of property no. K103AB, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi (henceforth Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 2 of 17 'suit property'); that vide registered lease deed dated 03.07.2008, the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as a tenant qua the suit property; that as per the registered lease deed dated 03.07.2008, it was interalia agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that (i) the term of the lease will be three years, starting from 01.06.2008 and ending on 31.05.2011, (ii) the suit property will be used for commercial purpose only, (iii) the rent qua the suit property will be Rs.90,000/ per month, enhanceable by 10% every year and (iv) the defendant will not sublet, assign or part away with the possession of the suit property; that in violation of the said stipulation, the defendant has sublet, assigned or given possession of part of the suit property to Indian Institute of Open and Distance Learning, a Trust registered w.e.f. 01.04.2009; that the plaintiff has found about the said fact from a letter dated 01.04.2009, written by the defendant to the plaintiff, informing that the business of M/s. Radiant Education Academy shall henceforth be carried out in the name of Indian Institute of Open and Distance Learning; that the plaintiff has replied to the letter dated 01.04.2009 vide reply dated 15.04.2009; that the defendant has also not been diligent in paying the rent to the plaintiff as per the terms of the registered lease deed dated 03.07.2008; that as a result of such conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has terminated the lease of the defendant qua the suit property through legal notice dated 29.09.2009; that the reply dated 30.10.2009 sent by the defendant qua the said legal notice is false and incorrect and that in such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs, sought by way of this suit.
3. Along with the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, 1908, interalia pleading (a) that the plaintiff had first filed the plaint of this suit in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in January 2010; (b) that vide Order dated 21.04.2011 Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 3 of 17 passed in Suit No.511/2010, Ishleen Kaur v M/s. Radiant Education (henceforth 'Suit No.511/2010'), the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi had directed that the plaint of this suit should be returned to the plaintiff, for filing before the Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this suit; (c) that instead of complying with the Order dated 21.04.2011, passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.511/2010, the plaintiff had filed a fresh suit against the defendant on the basis of cause of action that had accrued in 2011, in the Court of Ld. ADJ, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, on 08.09.2011; (d) that the said suit viz. CS No.267/2012, Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh (henceforth 'CS No.267/2012') was initially entertained by the Court of Ld. ADJ03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi; (e) that later vide Order dated 22.11.2013, the Court of Ld. ADJ03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi had rejected the plaint of CS No.267/2012 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, on the ground that the correct procedure to be adopted by the plaintiff was to comply with the Order dated 21.04.2011, passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.511/2010, take the plaint of this suit from the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi and file it, in the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit; (f) that after passing of the Order dated 22.11.2013 by the Court of Ld. ADJ03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, the defendant had handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in January 2014; (g) that thereafter, the plaintiff had discovered that Sh. Sikander Lal Choudhary, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had already taken the original plaint of this suit (filed in Suit No.511/2010); (h) that on account of the death of Sh. Sikander Lal Choudhary, Ld. Advocate, the said original plaint has been lost and (i) that as a result thereof, the plaintiff has filed only a copy of the plaint of this suit, in this Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 4 of 17 Court, on 04.07.2014.
4. Also, along with the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the aforesaid application.1
5. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant has contested this suit by filing her written statement. In the written statement of the defendant, it is interalia pleaded that the reliefs of injunctions, sought by way of this suit have become infructuous because admittedly, the plaintiff has obtained the possession of the suit property from Indian Institute of Open and Distance Learning in January 2014; that the monetary reliefs sought by way of this suit are barred by law of limitation because the said reliefs were sought for the first time in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in January 2010 and this suit has been instituted in this Court, on 04.07.2014; that the monetary reliefs sought by way of this suit are hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC, 1908; that the defendant had taken the suit property on rent from the plaintiff vide registered lease deed dated 03.07.2008; that initially, the defendant was using the suit property to run business in the name of Radiant Education Academy; that later, the management of Radiant Education Academy had been taken over by a trust named Indian Institute of Open and Distance Learning; that the said taking over had resulted in a fresh lease between the plaintiff and the trust named Indian Institute of Open and Distance Learning; that as such, the defendant is not liable to answer to the claims made by way of this suit; that the delays in payment of rent by 1 I have noted both the aforesaid applications in this judgment because they have not been decided till date; because the facts pleaded therein are relevant for deciding this suit and because by way of this judgment, I propose to decide both the aforesaid applications also.
Civil Suit No.10629/16Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 5 of 17 the defendant to the plaintiff had been condoned by the plaintiff; that the defendant had never violated the terms of the registered lease deed dated 03.07.2008; that the handing over of the business of Radiant Education Academy as well as the suit property to Indian Institute of Open and Distance Learning had occurred with the consent of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had never given the reply dated 15.04.2009 qua the letter dated 01.04.2009; that the defendant had sent the reply dated 30.10.2009 qua the legal notice dated 29.09.2009 and that this suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings (plaint and written statement) of the parties, the following issues were framed by a Ld. Predecessor Judge, on 21.11.2017:
"1. Whether the present suit is barred for limitation? OPD
2. Whether the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, 1908? OPD
3. Whether the suit is entitled the recovery of Rs.1,98,000/ towards rent in damages as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mean profit as prayed for if so what rate and for what period? OPP
5. Relief."
7. During the trial of this suit, one witness viz. PW1 Sh. Harpal Singh Sethi was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and one witness viz. DW1 Ms. Maneesha Parekh Gupta was examined in support of the case of the defendant. However, the examination of DW1 Ms. Maneesha Parekh was not Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 6 of 17 concluded because despite grant of due opportunity, she had not presented herself for crossexamination.
8. During examination in chief, PW1 Sh. Harpal Singh Sethi had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered in evidence power of attorney dated 01.07.2008, Mark A(colly), registered lease deed dated 03.07.2008, Mark B(colly), site plan, Mark C, legal notice and courier receipt, Mark D, reply dated 30.10.2009, Mark E, letter dated 01.04.2009, Mark F, copy of resolution, Mark G, certified copy of Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1 and certified copy of Order dated 22.11.2013, Ex.PW1/2. During crossexamination, PW1 Sh. Harpal Singh Sethi had interalia deposed that Suit No. 511/2010 was filed in 2008; that the defendant is liable to pay rent of 19 months but he does not know the exact months for which the rent is payable by the defendant; that by way of this suit, the plaintiff has only sought rent of 2 months amounting to Rs.1,98,000/; that in September 2009, the defendant had requested him to reduce the rent but he had not acceded to the said request and that he had met Late Sh. Sikander Lal Chaudhary, Ld. Advocate once or twice, after passing of the Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1 by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
9. During examinationinchief, DW1 Ms. Maneesha Parekh had deposed in line with her written statement. However thereafter, despite grant of due opportunity, she had not presented herself for crossexamination by the plaintiff.
10. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. N.K. Kukreja, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and Sh. T.S. Ahuja, Ld. Advocate for the defendant, on Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 7 of 17 09.03.2022 and 28.04.2022.
11. Before giving the findings qua the issues framed in this suit, on 21.11.2017, I find it necessary to make some prefatory observations qua the proceedings that have taken place interse the parties before the institution of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014.
12. The first landmark aspect of the proceedings that have taken place interse the parties before the institution of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014, is the passing of the Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1, by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.511/2010. In my view, the said Order would have been better, if at the end of the said Order, by following Order VII Rule 10A(1) of CPC, 1908, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, would have given a chance to the plaintiff to file an application under Order VII Rule 10A(2) of CPC, 1908. In this regard, reference is craved to the fact that Order VII Rule 10(1) starts with the words, "Subject to the provisions of Rule 10A...". Also, in this regard, reference is craved to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EXL Careers v Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667, which clearly indicates that the provisions of Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, 1908 are a sequitur to the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, 1908.
13. The second landmark aspect of the proceedings that have taken place interse the parties before the institution of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014, is the passing of the Order dated 22.11.2013, Ex.PW1/2 by the Court of Ld. ADJ03 SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 267/2012. In my view, the Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 8 of 17 said Order is suspect because it runs counter to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanamanthappa & Anr. v Chandrasekhharappa & Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 688 and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Asif Ahmedally Porbunderwalla v Mrs. Daulat Akbarali Porbandarwala, (2013) SCC OnLine Bom 1099.
14. In Hanamanthappa (supra), the plaintiff had amended the original plaint returned by the first Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and then presented it before the second/correct Court. The defendant had challenged the amendments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff was required to present the original/unamended plaint in the second/correct Court. The said plea of the defendant was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by making the following observations:
"3. ...The object of Order VII, Rule 10A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court of District Munsiff, Navalgund. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 9 of 17 proceeded with according to law. ..."
15. In Asif Ahmedally Porbunderwalla (supra)2 also, the plaintiff had amended the original plaint returned by the first Court on the ground of subject matter jurisdiction and then presented it before the second/correct Court. The defendant had challenged the amendments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff was required to present the original/unamended plaint in the second/correct Court. The said plea of the defendant was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by making the following observations:
"25. ...In my view there is no substance in the submission made by defendant no.7 that since averments made in this suit were not made in the plaint filed before City Civil Court, this suit is not maintainable on that ground. There is also no substance in the submissions made by defendant no.7 that in view of the order of return of plaint by the City Civil Court to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction, plaintiff ought to have lifted the plaint returned by the City Civil Court and ought to have presented the same plaint in this court without carrying out any amendment. This issue has been already decided by the Supreme Court in case of Hanamanthappa and another (supra) that the object of Order VII Rule 10(A) is 2 The said judgment refers to a previous judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Hirachand Succaram Gandhy v GIP Railways Company, AIR 1928 Bom 421, which in turn refers to a previous judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Hedlot v Karan, (1911) 15 Cal. LJ 241, laying down law to the effect that upon return of a plaint, for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction, the plaintiff should amend the plaint so as to include all intermediate transactions between the date of first presentation and the date of the presentation to the competent Court.Civil Suit No.10629/16
Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 10 of 17 that plaintiff, on the return of the plaint, can either challenge the said order before appropriate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is held that the suit filed afresh should be subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee and therefore it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court having no jurisdiction. It is held that it is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. In my view plaintiff was not precluded from filing this plaint with addition of parties and with new cause of action. In my view, these proceedings would not be treated as proceedings in continuation of the proceedings filed before the City Civil Court by the plaintiff but would be a fresh suit subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court fees.
26. Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Vishnu Horticultural Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Hanamanthappa (supra) and has held that a suit filed after return of the plaint afresh would be subject to limitation pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court fees and such Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 11 of 17 suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments in the plaint, it did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the same or which returned the plaint. Such suit will have to be treated as a fresh suit and can proceed in accordance with law from the stage of its presentation.
27. In my view, even if averments made in this plaint were not made in the earlier suit or the reliefs claimed in this suit were not made in the earlier suit, this suit can not be dismissed on such grounds. The plaintiff is entitled to file a fresh suit for different cause of action."
16. The third landmark aspect of the proceedings that have taken place interse the parties before the institution of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014, is the decision of the plaintiff to not challenge the Order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Court of Ld. ADJ03 SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 267/2012 in a superior Court. In my view, the consequences of the said decision have to be taken by the plaintiff.
17. The fourth landmark aspect of the proceedings that have taken place interse the parties before the institution of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014, is the decision of the plaintiff to pursue settlement with the defendant during 22.11.2013 to 03.07.2014 and not to immediately institute this suit in this Court, after passing of Order dated 22.11.2013 by the Court of Ld. ADJ03, SouthEast Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 12 of 17 District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 267/2012. In my view, the consequences of the said decision also, have to be taken by the plaintiff.
18. In the wake of the aforesaid prefatory observations qua the proceedings that have taken place interse the parties before the institution of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014, I now proceed to give the findings qua the issues framed in this suit, on 21.11.2017.
ISSUE NO.1
19. In my view, this issue is exfacie liable to be decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff, (a) because it is an admitted position of the parties that the reliefs of injunctions sought by way of this suit had become infructuous before filing of this suit in this Court, on 04.07.2014 as the plaintiff had admittedly obtained the possession of the suit property from the defendant in January 2014; (b) because in so far as the monetary reliefs sought by way of this suit are concerned, the plaintiff was required to represent/file the plaint of this suit in this Court, within the balance period of limitation left with the plaintiff or at worst, within 3 years, starting from passing of the Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1, by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.511/2010 or within 3 years of the day3 when admittedly, Late Sh. Sikander Lal Chaudhary, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had taken the original plaint of this suit from the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in 3 The onus was on the plaintiff to identify the said day. In view of the failure of the plaintiff to do so, I have drawn an adverse inference against the plaintiff as per illustration (g) Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and presumed that Late Sh. Sikander Lal Chaudhary, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had taken the original plaint of this suit, from the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in pursuance of Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1, prior to 03.07.2011.
Civil Suit No.10629/16Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 13 of 17 pursuance of Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1 and (c) because the plaintiff is not entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in respect of the time spent during the prosecution of CS No. 267/2012 before the Court of Ld. ADJ03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
20. In regard to the last reason identified in the aforesaid paragraph, it is noteworthy (a) that the plaintiff has not filed any application, clearly making out a case of the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of the time spent during the prosecution of CS No. 267/2012 before the Court of Ld. ADJ 03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, (b) that the Court of Ld. ADJ03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, had ultimately rejected the plaint of CS No. 267/2012 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 and not passed any Order, reflecting that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear CS No. 267/2012 and (c) that the decision of the plaintiff to pursue settlement with the defendant during 22.11.2013 to 03.07.2014 and not to immediately institute this suit in this Court, after passing of Order dated 22.11.2013 by the Court of Ld. ADJ03 SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 267/2012, reflects that the plaintiff lacked the due diligence/bonafide intent mentioned in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.4
21. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant. It is held that the monetary reliefs, sought by way of this suit, are barred by the law of limitation.
4 In this regard, reference is carved to the law regarding Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as explained in Narain Das v Banarsi Lal, AIR 1970 Pat 50.
Civil Suit No.10629/16Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 14 of 17 ISSUE NO. 2
22. In Jayantilal Chimanlal Patel v Vadilal Purushottamdas Patel, (2017), 13 SCC 409, S. Nazeer Ahmad v State Bank of Maysore, (2007) 11 SC 75, Bengal Waterproof Limited v Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing, (1997) 1 SCC 99 and Gurbux Singh v Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810, it has been held that for a plea of applicability of Order II Rule 2 of CPC, 1908 to be considered by a Court, it is necessary for the defendant to prove the pleadings in the earlier suit and without doing so, the defendant cannot press the said plea. In this suit, it is a matter of record that the defendant has not placed on record the pleadings, particularly the plaint of CS No.267/2012. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that the claims made by way of this suit are not hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC, 1908.
ISSUES NO. 3 AND 423. In my view, both these issues are exfacie liable to be decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff, (a) because during his cross examination, PW1 Sh. Harpal Singh Sethi was unable to identify the 19 months in respect of which, the defendant has not paid rent/mesne profits/damages to the plaintiff; (b) because the plaintiff has not placed on record the details of all the payments made by the defendant during the proceedings of CS No. 267/2012 and thereby hamstrung this Court, from making any fair assessment regarding the money, if any, payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and (c) because while deciding issue no. 1, this Court has already held that the claim of Rs.1,98,000/, made by the plaintiff in respect of the rent of November 2009 and December 2009, Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 15 of 17 had become barred by the law of limitation, on the date of institution of this suit in this Court viz. 04.07.2014.
24. In view of the aforesaid, both these issues are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any money from the defendant.
RELIEF
25. In view of the aforesaid findings given qua the issues framed in this suit, on 21.11.2017, this suit is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Also, the applications identified in paragraph 3 and 4 of this judgment are dismissed because they are totally misconceived.5
26. Before parting with this judgment, it is clarified that this suit is also liable to be dismissed because the plaintiff has not filed in this Court, the original plaint taken from the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in pursuance of the Order dated 21.04.2011, Ex.PW1/1 passed in Suit No. 511/2010; because the version of the plaintiff that the said original plaint was taken by her previous Advocate, Late Sh. Sikander Lal Chaudhary and has been lost, after his death, has not been proved in this Court and because even if the said version is true, the plaintiff should have filed in this Court, a copy taken from the 5 In my view, the first application is misconceived because in the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff could have filed an application under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, 1908, only before the Court of Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi before disposal of Suit No.511/2010. Also, in my view, the second application is misconceived because the Limitation Act, 1963, does not provide any specific time period for filing of an application under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, 1908 and because Section 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not contemplate/permit condonation of delay in filing of a suit.
Civil Suit No.10629/16Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 16 of 17 duplicate copy of the plaint filed in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. 511/2010 instead of a copy made from the copy filed in the Court of Ld. ADJ03, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 267/2012.
27. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be Digitally signed consigned to the record room. JAY by JAY THAREJA THAREJA Date: 2022.05.31 17:03:07 +0530 Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja) today on 31.05.2022 Ld. ADJ07, South East District, Saket Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No.10629/16 Ishleen Kaur v Maneesha Parekh, proprietor of M/s. Radiant Education Academy Page no. 17 of 17