Delhi High Court
Sudesh Chhikara vs Baljeet Singh on 12 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 1034/2017
% 12th February, 2018
SUDESH CHHIKARA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jaipal Singh, Advocate.
versus
BALJEET SINGH ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 5284/2018 (for restoration)
For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated
15.12.2017 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.
CM stands disposed of.
RFA No. 1034/2017
1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit
impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 9.8.2017 by which the
trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as
barred by limitation.
2. The suit plaint was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for
recovery of Rs.40 lacs against the respondent/defendant, who is the
father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff. The suit for recovery has been
filed by the appellant/plaintiff pleading that she was the owner of a
property measuring 50 sq. yards bearing no. B-51/B, part of Khasra
No. 9/12, situated in the area of village Matiala Delhi and this property
was owned by the appellant/plaintiff as it was purchased in her name
by her late husband being the son of the respondent/defendant. The
husband of the appellant/plaintiff expired on 19.10.2000 and thereafter
the suit property was sold on 24.2.2011 by the appellant/plaintiff on
being pressurized by the respondent/defendant, however the entire sale
consideration was not received by the appellant/plaintiff but by the
respondent/defendant and to recover which the subject suit was filed.
3. Respondent/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that
the husband of the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner of the subject
property and the subject property was purchased out of the funds of
the respondent/defendant. In any case the entire sale consideration for
the property bearing no.B-51/B, has been received by the
appellant/plaintiff and not by the respondent/defendant. Suit was
therefore prayed to be dismissed. It was also contended that for the
sake of arguments even if the appellant/plaintiff had to file a suit then
appellant/plaintiff had to file a suit within three years from 24.2.2011
when the property was sold but the subject suit was filed in November
2016 when limitation expired on 24.2.2014 and hence the suit was
hence prayed to be dismissed as time-barred.
4. Trial court has rejected the plaint by holding that Article
24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies and not Article 113 of the
Limitation Act inasmuch as Article 24 of the Limitation Act
specifically applies to facts when money is received by the
respondent/defendant for use of the appellant/plaintiff. Even for the
sake of arguments and even assuming though the appellant/plaintiff
was very much a party to the sale transaction of the property bearing
no. B-51/B, but that allegedly she did not receive the consideration
and that the respondent/defendant had received the consideration,
which of course though doubtful, but is a disputed question of fact, yet
the admitted position is that the property bearing no.B-51/B was sold
on 24.2.2011, and the suit was filed in November 2016 clearly makes
the suit plaint barred by time. Trial court has rightly held that in such
facts it is Article 24 of the Limitation Act which applies and not
Article 113 of the Limitation Act and which a general Article.
5. I may also note that respondent/defendant had contended
that many litigations have been initiated by the appellant/plaintiff
against the respondent/defendant and the subject suit was one of the
litigations, however, this Court does not have to go in any further
aspects inasmuch as the suit plaint has been rejected as being barred
by limitation applying Article 24 of the Limitation Act and which did
apply.
6. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 12, 2018/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
