Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The petitioner and opposite party No. 1 are represented by respective learned counsel. In view of the proforma opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 not being affected by the decision of this revisional application, service on the said proforma opposite parties was deemed redundant.
(2.) The first defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential relief in respect of an immovable property has filed the present revisional application. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner's application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on contest. Although various grounds for rejection of plaint were taken by the petitioner in the court below, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner primarily restricts his submissions to two grounds: i) The suit was time barred, ii) The suit was barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, both on the face of the plaint.
(3.) The suit in question was filed for the following reliefs: A. A decree for declaration that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest and ownership in respect of the property described in Schedule A hereunder with a declaration that the defendant no. 1 has got no right, title and interest in respect of the property described in Schedule 'A' & 'B' hereunder on the footing of a registered deed of transfer dated 30.1.2016 and its mother deeds; B. A decree for declaration that the mother deeds of the defendant no. 1 is not binding upon the plaintiff with further declaration that the defendant no. 1 has got no right, title and interest in the property and has got no right to make any construction on the 'B' Schedule property belonged to the plaintiff on the strength of any plan, if any, sanctioned in favour of the defendant no. 1 with declaration that plaintiff's title to the "A" & "B" Schedule property has not been affected by the purchase deed dated 20.01.2016 of defendant No. 1 and mother deeds; C. A decree for a declaration that the defendant no. 1 has no right to demolish the existing building and structure raised on the property and no right to make any multistoried building on the said property described in Schedule 'B' below; D. Recovery of damages of Rs.1,51,000/- be passed against the defendant no. 1; E. A decree be passed declaring that the decree passed in TS no. 20 of 1998 by the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Howrah which was registered in the registration office in between the parties thereto are not binding upon the plaintiff with declaration that the title of the plaintiff to the property described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' has not been affected in any way by the series of transfer by deeds as referred to above including the aforesaid decree thereof and plaintiff's title to the property described in Schedule 'A' 'B' thereof still remains valid with declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to take steps for eviction against the tenant separately in accordance with law; F. A decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendant no. 1 including its agents and employees from making any construction and/or from changing the nature and character of the property described in Schedule 'B' hereunder and not to transfer, encumber, and/or alienate the property to any third party; G. A decree for a permanent injunction be passed against the defendant nos. 2 and 3 from mutating the name of the defendant no. 1 in the municipal record and/or not to give any effect and/or further effect to the mutation, if any, made and not to sanction any plan for raising multistoried building on the property described in Schedule A & B hereunder and/or not to give any effect and/or further effect to the plan, if any, sanctioned by the Municipal Authority in respect of B Schedule property also on the footing of the purported transferred deeds of the defendant No. 1 and its mother deeds as referred to the pleading; H. Costs of the suit; I. Any other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to in law and equity.;