BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE (S. D.

),

DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI, AT SILVASSA,

INJUNCTION APPLICATION NO. …….. OF 2017

IN

SP. C. S. No. ……. of 2017

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

……………………….. …PLAINTIFFS

V/S.

…………………. …DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 3 TO 10

UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTIO 151 OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE COURT.
The Defendant most respectfully submits as under :-
1. The Defendants states that Plaintiff has filed the
present suit for reliefs more particularly as set put in
the Plaint. The Defendant shall crave leave to refer to
and rely upon the papers and proceedings of the above
referred matter as and when necessary. It is states
that the Plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance
with the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as the Plaint is barred by
the law of limitation.
2. Without prejudice to the Defendant No. 1’s assertion
that instant suit is barred by the law of limitation as
the Plaintiffs failed to file the suit with the time
prescribed under the law and is liable to be dismissed
on that count. It is stated that the time is not the
essence of the contract between the Plaintiffs and
Defendant however it is specifically provided in Section
46 of Indian Contract Act further provides that where
no time is specified in the contract for the performance
of the contract then it is to be performed within
reasonable time period and herein the Plaintiff has
failed to show why the contract could not be performed
for the gap of 24 years and on same count the Plaint is
 liable to rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.
3. It is stated that as per the Article 54 of Limitation Act,
time period for filing suit for specific performance of
contract is three and suit after the expiry of time
period as prescribed under the Limitation Act, is
barred and cannot be entertained and on the same
count the plaint be rejected with heavy compensatory
cost.
4. As per the Order VII Rule 11, the Plaint shall be
rejected where the suit is barred by law of limitation.
Further, deliberately suppression of facts and
statement made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is guilty of
suppressio vari and misrepresentation and is trying to
take advantage of his own wrongs. He has mis-
declared the true and correct facts of the case on oath.
The Plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground of this
suppression alone.
5. Without prejudice, the Plaintiff claims that the said
alleged contract was executed by and between Plaintiff
and Defendants the year 1993 but he has failed to
show why no action for transfer of suit property has
been taken for the gap of almost 24 years. It is also
submitted that question of rejection of Plaint has to be
decided on touchstone of Order VII Rule 11 which
provides that Plaint be rejected where the suit appears
from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law. In the present case the Plaintiff has filed the suit
after the gap of 24 years without any sufficient reason
for delay and on the same the suit is liable to be
rejected.
6. In (2007)10 SCC 59 - Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv
Kumar Gupta and others, it has been held as follows:

"Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC makes it clear that if

the plaint does not contain necessary
averments relating to limitation, the same is
liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is
 the duty of the person who files such an
application to satisfy the court that the plaint
does not disclose how the same is in time. In
order to answer the said question, it is
incumbent on the part of the court to verify the
entire plaint. Before passing an order in an
application filed for rejection of the plaint
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC it is but proper to
verify the entire plaint averments. While
deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, few lines or passage should not be read in
isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a
whole to ascertain its true import. It is trite law
that not any particular plea to be considered,
and the whole plaint has to be read."

7. This present Application filed bonafide and for the

ends of justice and grave prejudice and harm would be
caused to the Defendants, in event the present
application is not allowed. It is also submitted that
question of rejection of Plaint has to be decided on
touchstone of Order VII Rule 11 which provides that
Plaint be rejected if no cause of action is disclosed and
further suit is barred by law of limitation. In the
present case the Plaintiff has failed to show cause of
action and filed the suit within the time prescribed
under law of limitation and the suit is liable to be
rejected.
8. I say that, in the facts and circumstances, set out in
the present application, I am entitled reliefs as prayed
for therein and Plaint is liable to be dismissed with
heavy compensatory cost. I say that if the reliefs as
prayed for are not granted, then I shall suffer
incalculable loss, harm and prejudice which cannot be
compensated in terms of money on the contrary if the
reliefs as prayed for are granted, no loss, harm, injury
and prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiffs. The
balance of convenience is in my favour
 It is therefore prayed:-
a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased reject the
plaint filed by the abovesaid Plaintiff under Order
VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908
b. That the costs of the application be provided for;
c. Such other and further reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require be
granted.

Place:- Daman
Date – 12/06/2017

Advocate for Defendants Defendant No. 4

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE (S. D.),

DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI, AT SILVASSA,

INJUNCTION APPLICATION NO. …….. OF 2017

IN

SP. C. S. No. …… of 2017

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

…………………………….. …PLAINTIFFS

V/S.
…………………….. … DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT
I the abovenamed deponent, do hereby solemnly
affirmed and declare as under:-
1. I am the Defendant No. 4 in the present matter and I
am well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the present case. I am authorized and cometent to
swear and depose this affidavit.
2. I have read the content of the present application
under Order VII Rule read with Section 151 of Civil
Procedure Code and say that same are true to best of
knowledge and derived from records maintained by
me.
3. I say that I adapt the content of the accompanying
application part and parcel of my present affidavit as
the same are not reproduced for sake of brevity.

Defendant No. 4
Advocate for Defendant No. 3 to 10

VERIFICATION
I, ……………………….., do hereby declare that whatever
stated herein above in paragraphs of the Written
Statement is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly affirmed at Bombay )
This 12th day of June, 2017 )
Defendant No. 4
BEFORE ME
Identified & explained by me,

Advocates for Defendant No. 4