SURYA KIRAN MAINTENANCE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. MANJU PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 8.8.2001 which has partly decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of the amount taken by the appellant through coercion for giving a No Dues Certificate for sale of the flat of the respondent/plaintiff being flat No.309, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff purchased the subject flat from M/s. Ansal & Saigal Properties Pvt. Ltd. (thereafter known as M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd.). THE respondent/plaintiff wanted to sell the property in around October, 1999 and when it approached the appellant/defendant, the appellant/defendant refused to give the No Dues Certificate for sale and claimed an amount of Rs.61,461/- towards maintenance and other related charges and Rs.35,660/- towards fire-fighting charges totaling to Rs.96,821/- from the respondent/plaintiff. THE respondent/plaintiff was forced to pay the amount because unless this amount was paid the appellant was refusing to issue the No Dues Certificate.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant very vehemently argued that as per the Limitation Act, 1963 filing of a suit is barred, however, the respondent/plaintiff was not prevented from claiming the amount without filing a suit. I fail to understand as to how this argument will support the appellant because the case as laid out by the respondent/plaintiff was that the amount was extracted by the appellant as a result of coercion because but for the fact that the amount would have been paid, the No Dues Certificate would not have been issued by the appellant and which is an admitted fact on record. It is not that the disputed amounts were already with the appellant and which could have been adjusted by it against time barred claims. I also put it to the counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments as to whether the disputed charges which were claimed from 1990, and for which the decree was passed, were at all notified to the respondent/plaintiff by writing letters and reminders as being due, however, the counsel for the appellant admitted that in the trial Court no such documents/letters have been filed which claimed till 1999 the amounts which were allegedly due from the year 1990.