Pardeep Garg vs M/S Tdi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on 17 May, 2023
(supra); (ii) Standing Conference of Public Enterprise vs BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. (supra); (iii) SMC Comrade
Ltd. vs Narnoli Bullion & Ors. (supra); (iv) XS Infosol Pvt. Ltd.
vs M/s. GLS Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra); (v) Sham
Lal Gupta vs Hamco Industries (P) Ltd. (supra); relied upon by
Counsel for defendants terming claims of plaintiff being barred
by limitation. So these are of no help to defendant no. 1 for
dismissal/rejection of suit for being barred by limitation. As per
the case set up by plaintiff in pleadings and evidence and as
discussed above, upon launch of future project of allotment of
land in the project TDI City by defendants and on promises and
assurances of defendants subject plot was booked by plaintiff
with defendant nos. 1 and 2 upon which the Advance
CS (Comm.) No. 606/2020 Pardeep Garg vs M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 36 of 47
Registration Form Mark A was executed between the parties on
05/10/2005 and booking amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid in
year 2005 by plaintiff to defendants, which is admitted by
defendants whereas subsequently till year 2009 plaintiff made
payments for booking of said plot to defendants and defendants
have admitted of receipt of Rs.22,74,581/- from plaintiff with
respect to booking of subject plot and on that facet there is no
dispute inter se parties. It has been the case of plaintiff since
inception that all through plaintiff had been under the faith and
belief upon assurances of defendants that he will receive the
promised plot from the defendants and only when in suit for
mandatory injunction, copy Ex PW1/3, filed by plaintiff before
the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi,
the application Ex PW1/2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dated
25/01/2017 was filed by defendant no. 1 in said court of Ld.
Civil Judge; from averments made in para 2 therein that plaintiff
became aware that possession of subject plot could not be handed
over by defendants to plaintiff due to certain technical reasons
related to the development of land, as was contended by
defendants therein with the averment that though defendant no. 1
possessed permissions of developments and title of land
comprising of subject plot alloted to plaintiff. Court of Ld. Civil
Judge-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CS 57134/2016,
titled Pradeep Garg vs M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
vide order dated 14/07/2017, Ex PW1/1 rejected the plaint
therein under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC on application Ex
PW1/2, above said of defendant no. 1, holding that by said suit
for mandatory injunction plaintiff was infact seeking specific
performance of the contract for which neither there was any
CS (Comm.) No. 606/2020 Pardeep Garg vs M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 37 of 47
separate valuation for jurisdiction and court fees nor requisite
court fees was paid. Also by valuing the suit for mandatory
injunction at Rs. 130/- therein, plaintiff by no figment of
imagination could have sought the relief for recovery of money
from defendants without valuing the suit for recovery of money
and paying court fees. Also the present claim of plaintiff in this
case was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of Court of Ld. Civil
Judge. After becoming aware of above elicited averments of
defendant no. 1 laid in application Ex PW1/2 under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC dated 25/01/2017; plaintiff PW1 as per averments
in plaint and deposition in Ex PW1/A realized that though
promised, defendants were not in a position to deliver the
possession of subject plot promised by them to plaintiff for which
they had received aforesaid admitted amounts from plaintiff.
Present suit was filed/instituted on 28/11/2017.