S SATINDER SINGH Vs. RAMINDER SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I propose to decide the three applications being IA No.5062/2011, IA No.11021/1995 and IA No.7326/2006. The first application IA No.5062/2011 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 for placing on record the amended reply to the application filed by the defendant No.2 being IA No.11021/1995 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The second application being IA No.11021/1995 which is pending for the last about 16 years under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) filed by the defendant No.2 seeking the relief that the plaint be rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the suit is also barred by the provisions of the Benami Transions (Probation) Act, 1988. As the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, therefore, the suit is to be dismissed. The third application is filed by the plaintiff No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17, being IA No.7326/2006, for amendment of the plaint in the prayer clause as well as para 55(g) and 55(h) to the value of the new prayers sought to be added to incorporate the subsequent events. IA No.5062/2011

(2.) FIRST, I shall take up the application under Order 6 Rule 17 for placing on record the amended reply filed in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 by defendant No.2. It is stated in the application that due to the order passed by the Division Bench on 8.3.2007 in FAO (OS) 229/2005 plaintiff wishes to bring on record the said factum of the order in his reply to the application, therefore, the said amendment is sought. I feel, that there could be hardly any opposition to the said application in view of the orders having already been passed by the Division Bench on 8.3.2007. The present application is allowed. The amended reply to the IA No.11021/1995 is taken on record. The application stands disposed of. IA No. 11021/1995

(3.) IT is a matter of fact that defendant No.2 had earlier filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, being IA No.10294/2003, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and the suit was barred by time. After hearing, the said application was dismissed by order dated 21.3.2005. The relevant extract of the order dated 21.03.2005 while dismissing the application is reproduced hereinbelow: