Delhi District Court
Rakesh Sachdeva vs Delhi Development Authority N Ors on 9 July, 2025
Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PRIYA
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
CNR No.DLST03-002304-2022
Sh. Rakesh Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. B.R. Sachdeva
H. No. B-1/2 Malviya Nagar,
Pramod Mahajan Marg,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
..............Plaintiff
versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
(through Vice Chairman)
Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023
2. Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. B.R. Sachdeva
D-686, Chittaranjan Park
Saket, New Delhi-110023.
3. Sub Registrar-VIII
Govt. of NCT Delhi
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
4. Sub Registrar
Govt. Of NCT Delhi, Kashmere Gate
Delhi-110006.
5. Sub Registrar
Govt. Of NCT Delhi Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi
..............Defendants
Page no. 1 of 19
Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
Date of Institution : 24.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025
Decision : Dismissed.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION
JUDGMENT:
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of Conveyance Deed dated 29.01.2001 executed by DDA in favor of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva in respect of plot no. B 1/2 Saket, New Delhi-110017 as null and void; declaration of two Special Power of Attorney executed by Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva in favor of Late Sh. B.R. Sachdeva on 29.06.2000 as null and void; declaration of the Sale Deed dated 06.12.1990 executed by Sh. B.R. Sachdeva in favour of Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva as null and void; and declaration of the receipt dated 14.04.1983 signed by Sh. Bhagwan Din, allottee for Rs. 80,000/- (in which letter "K" was overwritten by letter "J") as null and void to the extent of such interpolation.
2. Facts in brief, as stated by the plaintiff, are that respondent No. 1 DDA had allotted a plot bearing No. B-1/2 in Malviya Nagar Ext. (Saket) to one Sh. Bhagwan Din, then MP (Rajya Sabha) on 13.9.1982 at the cost of Rs 51,923.47/-. A registered perpetual lease was also executed by DDA in his favour on 03.08.1985. Since plaintiff was in the profession of construction of buildings, Sh. Bhagwan Din entered into a written deal on 04.03.1983 with plaintiff for construction on the said plot. The work was done to the entire satisfaction of Sh. Bhagwan Din. However, being unable to pay the cost of construction which worked out to Rs 7,69,071/- at that time, legal notice was sent to him on 01.08.1988.
Page no. 2 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/20223. Subsequently, after his tenure as MP was over, Sh. Bhagwan Din settled down in Lucknow and left the property to remain in possession of plaintiff till the outstanding payment was made to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff is holding possession of and residing in the said premises continuously un-hindered. Neither Sh. Bhagwan Din nor his progeny, if any, ever raised a whisper of dispute since then. Thus, the plaintiff with his family, has been using the said property, paying all dues, electricity, water, taxes etc. to municipality regularly from his own account thus possession being adverse to all others.
4. Defendant No. 2 Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva, real brother of plaintiff, was aware of the events. However, greed for property overtook him to fabricate the documents and file a suit for possession under title CS DJ 209302 of 2016 pending before Saket Court. In that suit, defendant Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva made a false statement that he had purchased the plot and built up property thereon. He concealed material facts also. Hence, plaintiff had to file an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C before court which is pending.
5. When plaintiff started smelling rat in the execution of questioned documents, he moved an application to seek copies of documents from DDA which were allowed vide DDA letter dated 10.08.2022. Plaintiff got a rude shock when he saw that the documents were all fabricated by interpolation in name and doing all nefarious acts with chain-linking of documents to hide the fraud.
6. On complaint to DDA, DDA made a scrutiny of the whole matter to Page no. 3 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022find the existence of prima facie case against defendant No. 2. DDA issued a show cause notice dated 21.11.2022 revealing several points of incriminating nature. Plaintiff is now impugning the chain of fabricated documents which include (1) Conveyance Deed dated 29.01.2001 executed by DDA, (2) Sale Deed dated 06.12.1990 executed by Sh. B.R. Sachdeva and (3) two Special Power of Attorneys dated 29.06.2000 issued by Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva, both in favour of Sh. B.R. Sachdeva.
7. Thus, cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff when he got the documents and also when defendant No. 1/DDA issued a show cause notice on 21.11.2022 to defendant No. 2 asking him to explain the fraud as to why the conveyance deed dated 29.1.2001 should not be cancelled. Since defendant No. 1 has taken up the process by issuing show cause notice, plaintiff, who is an ailing senior citizen, intends to get a decree of declaration to the effect that the impugned documents are null and void. Hence, this suit.
8. By virtue of this application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, defendant has prayed that the suit be dismissed as barred by limitation on the basis of admissions made by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as pleadings of a previous suit. It is contended that the documents were executed in the year 1983, 1990, 2000, 2001. The execution of these documents was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff which can be derived from the following facts:
(i) His own reply dated 15.07.2009 (admitted document), wherein he stated as under:-
"PARA NO. 5:- This property was purchased in Page no. 4 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
the name of your client because at that time the mother Smt. Shakuntala Devi was holding a share in a Housing Society named as Gurjawala Housing Society and my client had applied for a flat 1979 HUDCO Pattern with DDA and purchasing the property bearing no. B-1/2, Saket in the name of mother and/or my client would have resulted in cancellation of allotment of Gurjawala Housing Society.....".
(ii) When the summons of the suit for possession filed by the defendant no. 2 herein against the plaintiff herein in CSDJ/9302 of 2016 (old no. 654/2014) titled as Rajesh Sachdeva v. Rakesh Kumar Sachdeva, were served upon him and he filed his written statement. The copies of the plaint, amended plaint as well as the written statement of the above said suit have been categorically admitted by the plaintiff herein, in his affidavit of admission and denial filed in the present suit.
(iii) From the contents of the application under section 340 Cr PC filed by the plaintiff herein, wherein he again specifically stated that all these documents came to his knowledge on 29/08/2014. The copy of the said application has been admitted by the plaintiff herein, in his affidavit of admission and denial filed in the present suit.
9. It is further stated that the alleged ground of "forged documents"
had been taken by the plaintiff in his written statement filed on 21.05.2014. As per the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, the suit of this nature was required to be filed within three years of acquiring knowledge of the existence of these documents and the alleged forgery. It is contended that the plaintiff had knowledge in the year 2009 itself and in any case, in the Page no. 5 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
year 2014 when he filed the written statement in CS DJ 9302/2016, and any suit for declaration/cancellation of these documents could have been filed only within three years thereafter. The present suit having been filed in the year 2022, is clearly barred by the limitation.
10. Application is opposed by the plaintiff highlighting the fraudulent execution of these documents, and stating that the same are forged and fabricated. On the point of limitation, it is stated that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose only in November 2022 when show-cause notice was issued by the DDA to defendant no. 2 Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva, on 21.11.2022, and also when the plaintiff received copies of original documents from DDA in August 2022 and came to know about the fraud. The cause of action is continuing in nature, the suit has been filed within one month of issuance of the show-cause notice and is well within limitation.
11. I have carefully perused the material available on record and have heard detailed submissions of learned counsels for both sides. I have also gone through the law prevailing on this point.
12. As per the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
"Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions."
Page no. 6 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/202213. In the case of Ravi Shankar Sharma v. Kali Ram Sharma1, it has been held that:
"6. As per the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a Court is entitled to decide the suit on the basis of admitted facts at any stage. The intendment of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is that litigants should not undergo rigours of long pendency of a case and tribulations of a trial if on the admitted facts the entitlement of the plaintiff to the reliefs is not made out. The salutary is utilized in order to cut short such litigation which should no longer remain pending. I may note that a decree as per Section 2(2) CPC includes dismissal of a suit and therefore the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC applies even for dismissal of a suit which is also called a decree (Emphasis supplied)".
14. In Premwati v. Bhagwati Devi2 it was observed and I quote:
"As per the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a Court is entitled to pass judgment on the basis of admitted facts which emerge. As per Section 2(2) of the CPC decree includes dismissal of the suit. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC therefore can also be invoked on behalf of the defendants to seek dismissal of the suit on the basis of admitted averments which existed. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not to allow unnecessary trial in cases where the plaint admittedly does not make out the cause of action (Emphasis supplied)".
15. Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been couched in wide terms and the expression "pleadings or otherwise" has been given a broad interpretation by several judicial precedents. In the case of SCJ Plastics Ltd. v. Creative Wares Ltd, 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 447, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1 Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) No.2329/1999 dated 07.09.2012. 2 MANU/DE/4784/2012.
Page no. 7 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022Union Bank of India v. Uttam Singh Duggal & Company, 2000 (7) SCC 120 to highlight that a decree on admissions can be passed even with reference to pleadings in an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and which pleadings of application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC falls within the meaning of expressions "pleadings or otherwise" as appearing under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Hon'ble High Court further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and Anr. (1974) 1 SCC 242 to reiterate the settled law that judicial admissions are placed at a higher pedestal than evidentiary admissions, and admissions made in judicial proceedings can themselves be the basis of grant of relief. It has been held in para no.27 of the Nagindas Ramdas case (Supra), and I quote:
"Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions"
16. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal3, Liverpool & London S. P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success4 as well as in ITC Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that proceedings of which there is no possibility of success and/or which are deadwood and are doomed should be shot down at the earliest stage and ought not to be permitted to clog the resources of the Court and at the cost of other deserving matters requiring the attention of the Courts and should not be allowed to be used as a device to harass.
3 (1977) 4 SCC 467.
4 I (2004) 9 SCC 512.
5 (1998) 2 SCC 70.
Page no. 8 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/202217. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for declaration has to be filed within 3 years when the right to sue first accrues. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation of 3 years for cancellation of documents commences when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled become known to him. Also, as per Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when a suit is based upon the fraud of the defendant, period of limitation commences from when the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or mistake or could with reasonable diligence, have discovered it.
18. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether the present suit has been filed within limitation, it is essential to determine as to when the plaintiff came to know about the alleged fraud/forgery of the documents.
19. In para 4 of his plaint, the plaintiff has stated that:
"Plaintiff came to know about the fraud when respondent filed a frivolous suit to seek possession of above said property in the court whereupon plaintiff filed application under R.T.I Act, 2005".
20. Undisputedly, the said suit for possession had been filed in the year 2009. Copy of the plaint of the said suit i.e. CS DJ 9302/2016 (old no. 654/2014) is also on record and admitted by the plaintiff. Thus, as per admission in the plaint, plaintiff came to know about the fraud in 2009.
21. Besides, it is pertinent to refer to the written statement filed by the plaintiff (as defendant in the previous suit) in the year 2014 wherein he stated in para 1 of the reply on merits that:
Page no. 9 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
"......The conveyance deed dated 29.01.2001, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, as Doc. No. 2048, Book No.1, Vol. No. 455 on pages 155-157, on 01.02.2001 as alleged is a forged document as in the said document the plaintiff had been described as the lessee of the document, the lease deed dated 03.09.1985....."
22. In another application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the plaintiff herein in CS(OS) No. 654/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 07.01.2016, plaintiff prayed the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to conduct an enquiry in respect of the document produced by defendant no.2 herein on 29.08.2014 before the court featuring at serial no. 4 in the list of documents i.e. the certified copy of receipt dated 14.04.1983 on the plea of interpolation of letter (j) and (k), specifically at para 12 of the said application.
23. Similarly in the year 2016, more specifically on 11.01.2016, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been filed by the plaintiff herein in CS (OS) No. 654/2014 as IA No. 537/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein he had sought cancellation of the sale deed dated 06.12.1990, cancellation of the conveyance deed dated 28.01.2001 as well as cancellation of other documents mentioned at serial no. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20 in the list of documents filed on 29.08.2014, on the ground that these documents are forged and fabricated.
24. From perusal of the said application, it is quite evident that the documents as well as alleged forgery in respect of the documents was in the knowledge of the plaintiff on the date of filing the said application. His Page no. 10 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022application had been dismissed on 10.08.2017 by the court of Ld. ADJ-04, South, Saket Court, New Delhi, on the ground that the said relief could not be granted under Order VII Rule 11 application. Despite not getting relief from the said court, the plaintiff did not file any suit within the prescribed limitation pressing these reliefs.
25. It is also pertinent to note that in his affidavit of evidence filed in the previous suit on 06.05.2019, plaintiff has stated in para 19 to 24 as follows:
"19.........I say that document dated 14.04.1983 registered as document no. 2946 in Add. Book No. IV Volume No. 928 page 174 registered with the Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi is a forged document.
20........I say only on 29.08.2014 deponent came to know about the existence of said document dated 14.04.1983 registered as document no.2946 in Add. Book No. IV Volume No. 928
page 174 registered with the Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, when plaintiff filed a bunch of documents before the Hon'ble High Court comprising of 157 pages and the said document was part of the bunch (serial no. 6 page no. 34-40)
21......... I say that document, vide registration no. 890 Book No. IV Volume No. 21 page no. 193 registered on 26.04.1983 with Sub Registrar Noida, U.P. is a forged document.
22.......... I say only on 29.08.2014 deponent came to know about the existence document vide registration no. 890 Book No. IV Volume no. 21 page 193 registered on 26.04.1983 with Sub Registrar Noida, U.P. when plaintiff filed a bunch of documents before the Hon'ble High Court comprising of 157 pages and the said document was part of the bunch.
23........... I say that document vide registration no. 889 Book no. IV Volume no. 21 page no. 192 registered on 26.04.1983 with Sub Registrar Noida, U.P. is a forged document.
24.......... I say only on 29.08.2014 deponent Page no. 11 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
came to know about the existence document vide registration no. 889 Book No. IV Volume No. 21 page no. 192 registered on 26.04.1983 with Sub Registrar Noida, U.P. when plaintiff filed a bunch of documents before the Hon'ble High Court comprising of 157 pages and the said document was part of the bunch".
26. It is also pertinent to note that vide judgment dated 07.11.2024, the Ld. Court of DJ-04, South, Saket had specifically dealt with the issue of these documents being forged and also dealt with all the contentions raised by the defendant on the basis of which cancellation of these documents is sought in the present suit after framing specific issue in this regard as follows: 'Whether suit of the plaintiff is based on forged documents?' Finding to the effect that the Sale Deed dated 06.12.1990 and Conveyance Deed dated 29.01.2001 and all intervening documents are not forged and fabricated, has already been arrived at by the Ld. DJ Court after detailed discussion in this regard. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are as follows:
"ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?OPP Plaintiff is claiming ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 06.12.1990 and conveyance deed dated 29.01.2001. Both Old No.CS(OS)654/14 Rajesh Sachdeva vs Rakesh Kumar Sachdeva Page 9 of 21 New No.CS DJ 9302/16 the documents have been tendered in evidence. Certified copies of them have been produced, compared with the originals and hence stand proved in accordance with the law.
......Defendant has raised several objections with respect to the intervening transactions which had ultimately led to the execution of these documents. The biggest challenge has been Page no. 12 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
posed to the receipt dated 14.04.1983. Defendant during the course of his oral arguments had vehemently challenged the authenticity of the receipt dated 14.04.1983 and had even gone to the extent claiming that there has been interpolation in the name of Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva, where 'K' has been converted into 'J'. However, perusal of the testimony of PW1 and the questions put by defendant's counsel shows that defendant did not put any question with respect to the authenticity or veracity of the said document. Defendant had not even put a suggestion regarding the same. Defendant's questions during cross-examination of PW1 have ranged from the date of 'agreement to sale' between plaintiff & Bhagwan Din to the identity of the original lessee. However, there is no suggestion with respect to the 'interpolation'.
.......The another point on which sale deed executed on 06.12.1990 has been challenged is that Sh. B.R Sachdeva had no right to transfer the property. It is further alleged that before the conveyance deed that was executed on 29.01.2001 by the DDA on the basis of sale deed dated 06.12.1990, DDA did not consider that B.R. Sachdeva had no right to transfer the property or execute any sale deed.
......Registered Sale Deed dated 06.12.1990 was produced in original and was returned to the plaintiff after taking certified copy on record. It shows that property was transferred by SPA of Bhagwan Din in favour of plaintiff. Sh. B.R. Sachdeva had executed the sale deed as SPA holder of the original allottee. Sale deed, apart from being registered, is in itself a logically coherent document. It contains recitals pertaining to the permission obtained from DDA for sale. It contains complete details of the payment made. It also contains details of the registered SPA whereby Bhagwan Din had authorized Sh. B.R. Sachdeva as his SPA holder. A copy of the letter No.F.14(1)77/Lab/18049 dated 25.10.2000, whereby lease hold rights of the suit property were transferred in the name of Page no. 13 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
the plaintiff, obtained through RTI is also on record. Conveyance Deed dated 29.01.2001 was also produced in original and was returned to the plaintiff after taking certified copy on record. Plaintiff's ownership of the suit property stands proved through a complete chain of documents.
........Besides, when the entire series or chain of transactions has resulted into a registered Sale Deed and the Conveyance Deed, which have never been challenged by the defendant within the limitation provided for seeking cancellation of document, defendant cannot raise these objections to doubt duly registered documents. Even if the date of knowledge of defendant of these documents is taken as late as the year 2014, no cancellation was sought by the defendant within the prescribed limitation.
.....In light of the above discussion it is clear that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Hence, the issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2
2.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based upon forged document?OPD Two major limbs of the objection raised by the defendant regarding plaintiff's document being forged & fabricated are: (1) Cheques, depicted as the sale consideration in the Receipt dated 14.04.1983 were paid by defendant to Bhagwan Din. (2) Conveyance Deed is a forged document due to a wrong recital i.e. plaintiff has been described as lessee, whereas Bhagwan Din was the original lessee.
Defendant did not produce any evidence to show that the money was actually transferred from his bank account. No witness from bank was ever called. No statement of accounts was ever produced.
As far as the second objection of conveyance deed containing wrong recitals i.e. describing plaintiff as the lessee is concerned, it is already Page no. 14 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.CS SCJ No. 1278/2022
discussed in the finding of Issue No.1 and it is again repeated that DDA vide letter dated 25.10.2000 had already transferred lease hold rights in the favour of plaintiff. Hence on the relevant date of conveyance deed plaintiff was the 'lessee'.
Most importantly, despite having objections against the said documents, defendant took no steps to challenge the sale deed dated 06.12.1990 and conveyance deed dated 29.01.2001 in which all these intervening documents had culminated into. There is a presumption in the favour of registered documents that the documents have been properly executed.
.......In the present case defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the said documents are forged and fabricated. Merely raising doubts on the document would not dismantle the case put forward by the plaintiff on the basis of registered documents. As situation stands today the sale deed and conveyance deed are duly registered documents, which were registered 34 years and 23 years ago, respectively. The onus to prove this issue was on defendant, which defendant has failed to discharge. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant.
...........
RELIEF In view of the finding of the issue no.1,2&3, plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of Possession of the suit property i.e. entire basement, first floor and entire second floor of property bearing no. B-1/2 erected on a plot measuring 160 square yards situated at Saket, New Delhi."
27. Thus, the contentions raised in the present suit and the issue of documents being forged and fabricated have already been raised and decided after trial by another court of competent jurisdiction. Now, it is not open to the plaintiff to challenge the said findings of the Ld. DJ Court by Page no. 15 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022way of a fresh suit. Since the said judgment is under appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it has not attained finality and res judicata is not strictly applicable.
28. Be that as it may, it cannot be lost sight of that the aforesaid judgment leaves no room for doubt that the alleged forgery was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff atleast in 2014, when he filed his written statement in the aforesaid suit, and thereafter led evidence and suffered the judgment. Thus, limitation for filing this suit expired in 2017.
29. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that issuance of show-cause notice by DDA in 2022 gave rise to a fresh cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. However, the said contention is highly misconceived. The issuance of show-cause notice cannot create a fresh cause of action when the limitation period from the date of accrual of cause of action for the first time has long expired. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)6, wherein it is held that:
"Article 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, prescribe the period of limitation for filing a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or rescission of a contract, which reads as under:
Description of Period Time from which suit of period begins to limitatio run n
58.To obtain Three When the right to any other years sue first accrues. declaration.
59.To cancel Three When the facts
or set aside an years entitling the
6 Judgment dated 09.07.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 9519 of 2019.
Page no. 16 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022 instrument or plaintiff to have the
decree or for instrument or
the rescission decree cancelled or
of a contract. set aside or the
contract rescinded
first become
known to him.
The period of limitation prescribed under Article 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., this court held that the use of the word 'first' between the words 'sue' and 'accrued', would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begun to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a free cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued."
30. Further in the case of Manjeet Kaur & Anr. v. Devender Dagar & Anr.7, it was held that "......The Limitation Act, 1963 under Part III of Schedule thereof dealing with the suits relating to declaration, under Article 58 provides for limitation of three years for a suit for obtaining any other declaration, commencing from when the right to sue first accrues, and under part IV dealing with suits relating to decrees and instruments, under Article 59 provides for a limitation of three years for a suit to cancel or set aside the instrument, commencing from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument or decree cancelled become known to the plaintiffs. Supreme Court, in Prem Singh vs. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353 has held that in a suit filed for cancellation of a transaction and when the plaintiff assets coercion, under influence, misappropriation or fraud, Article 59 would be 7 Order dated 28.11.2019 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS OS 619/2019.
Page no. 17 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022attracted".
31. Thus, a subsequent issuance of show-cause notice in 2022 does not create a fresh cause of action in favor of the plaintiff if he already had knowledge of the alleged fraud/forgery of documents on a prior date.
32. From the aforesaid discussion in para no. 19 to 28, it emerges that the plaintiff has admitted in his plaint that he got knowledge of the fraud for the first time in the year 2009 when the suit for possession was filed by defendant no. 2. Even if such knowledge was not complete, thereafter, from several pleadings filed by the plaintiff in CS DJ No. 654/2014 (all of which are admitted by the plaintiff in its affidavit of admission and denial) be it written statement filed in 2014, application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed in 2016, application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. filed in 2016 or affidavit of evidence filed in 2019, it is evident that the plaintiff was well aware of the existence of these documents and of the alleged forgery since 2014. As per the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, the present suit could have been filed within three years thereafter i.e. 2017, however, it has been filed only in 2022, and is thus hopelessly barred by section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
33. Considering the scope and object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the totality of facts and circumstances, on the basis of the aforesaid analysis, for the reasons cited above and seeking guidance from the aforesaid judicial precedents, it is a fit case that merits exercise of powers by this Court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for dismissal of the suit. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, being Page no. 18 of 19 Rakesh Sachdeva v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
CS SCJ No. 1278/2022barred by limitation.
34. No order as to costs.
35. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
36. File be consigned to the record room after due indexing and Digitally pagination. NEHA NEHA Date:
signed by PRIYA PRIYA 2025.07.09 16:08:39 +0530 NEHA PRIYA Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/09.07.2025 Announced by me in the open court today on 09.07.2025. All the nineteen pages of this judgment have been checked and signed by me.Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA PRIYA Date: PRIYA 2025.07.09 16:08:45 +0530 NEHA PRIYA
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/09.07.2025 Page no. 19 of 19