LACHMAN SINGH Vs. BIRENDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil suit (CS 578952/16) in which the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 was passed by the Additional District Judge has been instituted by the respondent (plaintiff) against the petitioner (defendant). By the impugned order, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application of the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) with which the defendant is aggrieved and has come up to this Court by the petition at hand.

(2.) Though the copy of the plaint has not been filed with the petition, a copy was shown during the hearing, it revealing that the suit was presented on 012010 seeking a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 010.2004 and receipt dated 26.09.2010 in respect of sale of property described as bearing plot no.4, Block-C, Sector-28, Rohini or, in the alternative, decree of damages in the sum of Rs.21,00,000/- with interest besides a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from creating third party interest, alienating, selling or mortgaging the said property.

(3.) From the averments in the plaint and from the submissions made before the learned trial Court at the time of hearing on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as noted in the order dated 01.12.2017, and also an earlier order dated 15.10.2016, it emerges that the execution of an agreement of sale of the said plot of land by the petitioner in favour of the respondent is beyond dispute. It appears the petitioner as the defendant is resisting the case primarily on the grounds that he was only a lessee under Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and had not even been given the possession of the said plot of land and, therefore, the agreement to sell could not be specifically enforced. It is also one of the grounds in defence taken that the suit is time barred.