RSA No. 2444 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2444 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 28, 2010 M/s Simran Poultry Private Limited and another ...Appellants Versus DLF Limited and another ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. AK Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal against the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing their first appeal preferred against the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurgaon, rejecting their plaint. Plaintiff No.1 is the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and plaintiff No.2 is one of its directors. They filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. In the suit, the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. They pleaded therein that plaintiff No.1-company does not exist and is not a legal entity. The RSA No. 2444 of 2009 2 management and control thereof was acquired by defendant No.1 in the year 1992, after the entire shares thereof were purchased and the same was amalgamated with defendant No.1-Company, by virtue of grant of sanction to the scheme by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, plaintiff No.1- Company cannot proceed with the suit. The suit is also barred by limitation. The application was contested by the plaintiffs by filing reply, in which all the contentions were denied. The plaintiffs pleaded that the persons as mentioned in the application were never the share holders of plaintiff No.1-Company. Even if there was any such amalgamation, the same is void abinitio having been obtained for fraudulent consideration. After going through the record of the case and hearing counsel for both the sides, the trial court accepted the application and rejected the plaint. As already stated, the said order was upheld by the first appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs tried to contend that the facts, as pleaded in the application, could have been ascertained only on the basis of the evidence to be produced by the parties as in reply to the application, the plaintiffs specifically denied the factum of amalgamation. The suit is not barred by limitation as the cause of action had accrued only two years before the filing of the suit. The contents of the plaint were read by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of arguments. It is pleaded in the plaint itself that the cause of action to file the suit accrued to the plaintiff for the first time in the year 1992. No doubt, it is also pleaded in the plaint that the same had arisen subsequently also in the years mentioned therein, but the period of RSA No. 2444 of 2009 3 limitation is to be computed from the date when the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff(s) for the first time. The suit was to be filed within a period of three years and the same having been filed after the expiry of the said period is barred by limitation. No illegality was committed by the courts below, while rejecting the plaint on that ground. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed. October 28,2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE