DIPAK SAHA Vs. MA KREENG CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTIES entered into an agreement for sale dated May 25, 2006 by which the appellants agreed to sell and the respondents agreed to purchase an office space in premises no.118, Raja Dinendra Street, Calcutta. As per the agreement, the respondents paid Rs.68 lakhs. The appellants would, however, deny receipt of the entire sum. According to them, only a sum of Rs.17 lakhs was paid by cheque whereas the balance sum of Rs.51 lakhs alleged to have been paid in cash was not received. There was no contemporaneous demand, neither the respondents got possession of the office space nor the Conveyance was executed. Fact would remain, the self-same office premises was leased out to Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. Bajaj duly fixed their hoarding and they were in possession since then. The respondents never objected. According to the respondents, in 2009 the parties entered into an agreement for refund of the said sum of Rs.68 lakhs and in fact, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid by cheque. The balance sum was to be paid by post dated cheques handed over to the respondents, simultaneously with the execution of the agreement for refund.

(2.) THE appellants would, however, contend, the respondents being accompanied by hooligans and/or anti-socials raided their office and coerced to sign the so-called agreement to refund and post dated cheques. They immediately made a complaint to the police station followed by reminder and ultimately an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was made before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate declined to ask the police to intervene, as according to him, the dispute was civil in nature. He, however, directed hearing of the said application upon notice to the other side. The appellants approached one of us (Banerjee, J.) in an application for Criminal Revision where the Criminal Revisional Court observed, the observation of the learned Magistrate was prima facie in nature and must not influence the ultimate finding. Learned Magistrate, upon hearing, ultimately directed registration of FIR. The respondents became aggrieved. They filed a revisional application before this Court for quashing of the FIR. Learned Single Judge declined. The criminal proceeding is thus pending and awaiting final decision.

(3.) MS . Chhama Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend, the agreement for sale, even if taken on its face value, would be clearly barred by the laws of limitation. No suit for specific performance was ever filed by the respondents. The respondents also did not contemporaneously claim refund of the sum. The suit being filed after three years, would be clearly barred by the laws of limitation.