RAZIA BEGUM Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-158
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
October 11,2013
RAZIA BEGUM
Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
C MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. SYED UNNISSA [REFERRED TO]N V SRINIVASA MURTHY VS. MARIYAMMA [REFERRED TO]
HARDESH ORES P LTD VS. HEDE AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SINGH VS. GURDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INSPIRATION CLOTHES AND U VS. COLBY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN VS. RAM KISHAN [REFERRED TO]
SANNIDHI RATNAVATHI VS. ARAVA NARASIMHA MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
MT BOLO VS. MT KOKLAN [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD VS. VIMLA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHAHEED MEMORIAL SOCIETY (REGD) VS. PROMILA KISHORE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-10-60] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Ia No. 5642/2011 (u/O 7 R 11 CPC)
1. This is an application filed by defendant No. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit as barred by law.
(2.)It is the contention of the applicant that the present suit is hit by Article 56 of Schedule 1 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act. He submits that the documents under challenge in the suit are required to be challenged within three years from the date of its execution. Hence, it is stated that the suit for cancellation of the two documents is hopelessly barred by limitation on the face of it and cannot be entertained.
(3.)The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration declaring letter dated 20.03.1993 by which possession of Flat No. 4115, C- 4, FF, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was handed over by defendant No. 1-DDA to defendant No. 2 as illegal, null and void, a decree of possession for the said flat against the defendants and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants pertaining to the said flat.
1. This is an application filed by defendant No. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit as barred by law.
(2.)It is the contention of the applicant that the present suit is hit by Article 56 of Schedule 1 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act. He submits that the documents under challenge in the suit are required to be challenged within three years from the date of its execution. Hence, it is stated that the suit for cancellation of the two documents is hopelessly barred by limitation on the face of it and cannot be entertained.
(3.)The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration declaring letter dated 20.03.1993 by which possession of Flat No. 4115, C- 4, FF, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was handed over by defendant No. 1-DDA to defendant No. 2 as illegal, null and void, a decree of possession for the said flat against the defendants and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants pertaining to the said flat.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.