JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - The plaintiffs, who are sons and daughters of late Smt.Shanti Devi, have instituted the present suit under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 7 of the Specific Relief Act and section 202 of Contract Act, seeking therein relief of possession of an independent house i.e. Type C-II, allotted to late Smt.Shanti Devi for a total cost of Rs. 3,03,300/- under Self Financing Scheme, below BCS in New Shimla, H.P. in terms of order dated 17.12.2002 (Ex.DW-1/M), passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, which was further affirmed by H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla vide order dated 17.12.2003 (Ex.DW-1/N) and thereafter by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide order dated 14.7.2004 (Ex.DW- 1/O) (for short ''District Forum, H.P.State Commission and National Commission'' respectively). By way of aforesaid suit plaintiffs have also claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- as damages alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum with costs of the suit. 2. In nutshell, the case as emerge from the plaint, having been filed by the plaintiffs, is that the parents of the plaintiffs were Bhakra Dam Oustees and father of the plaintiffs was allotted only one residential plot in new Bilaspur Town in the year 1958, but, since Smt.Shanti Devi, deceased mother of the plaintiffs, had 8 children, she wanted to have another residential house at Shimla and accordingly, in the year 1989, she applied for allotment of an independent house under 6th Self Financing Scheme, floated by the Erstwhile Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (for short ''ENVP''). The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that they paid the requisite amount under protest, but, despite that the possession was not delivered to Smt.Shanti Devi and as such, they approached District Forum at Shimla, who vide order dated 17.12.2002 (Ex.DW-1/M) directed the H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran to hand over possession of residential house by constructing the same within one year on same terms and condition on which same was allotted to other allottees. 3. Plaintiffs have further averred that the District Forum at Shimla had also directed ''ENVP'' that the amount deposited by the plaintiffs shall also carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the possession of the house is delivered to them. 3. Plaintiffs have further averred that the District Forum at Shimla had also directed ''ENVP'' that the amount deposited by the plaintiffs shall also carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the possession of the house is delivered to them. Appeal preferred before the H.P. State Commission, having been filed by the defendants, stood dismissed on 17.12.2003 (Ex.DW-1/N), which order was further affirmed by the National Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 14.7.2004 (Ex.DW-1/O). 4. Plaintiffs have further alleged that defendant No.1, ignoring the claim of the plaintiffs, sold house No.415 to defendant No.2 and another house No.416 to defendant No.3, which has caused mental and physical agony to them and as such, they are entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/- alongwith interest. The plaintiffs also alleged that though the initial price of the house was assessed at Rs. 3,03,300/-, but, lateron, vide letter dated 12.01.1994, tentative cost of the house was revised to Rs. 6,00,600/-, which action of defendant No.1, cannot be said to be justified. 5. Defendant No.1 refuted the aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiffs by way of filing the written statement. Defendant No.1 admitted that Smt.Shanti Devi had applied for allotment of Type C-II partially constructed house vide application dated 14.12.1989 and was registered for the house vide registration dated 18.12.1990. Defendant No.1, however, denied that two houses, constructed at initial stage, were sold to some influential persons on the same price as shown in 1989 to 1994. Defendant No.1 claimed that defendant No.2 was originally registered for Type-C partially constructed house in 5th Self Financing Scheme, therefore, she was allotted Flat No.415 partially constructed vide allotment letter dated 24.07.1995 at the total cost of Rs, 4,91,610/-. Defendant No.1 further averred that defendant No.3 was allotted house No.416 with the approval of Board of Directors. 6. Written statement, having been filed by the defendant No.1, further reveals that defendant No.1 raised objection that the plaintiffs, being legal heirs of deceased Smt. Shanti Devi, filed complaint before the District Forum at Shimla and got an order in their favour, which order was upheld upto the National Commission, therefore, they were not entitled to file the suit. Defendant No.I also alleged that it intimated plaintiff No.1 about tentative cost and asked them to give consent for the allotment of house within 30 days, which was not responded by plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.I also alleged that it intimated plaintiff No.1 about tentative cost and asked them to give consent for the allotment of house within 30 days, which was not responded by plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 also averred that the plaintiffs were also asked to give consent, if they wanted fully constructed or partially constructed house, but, such communication was never responded, therefore, reminders dated 15.01.2005 and 24.05.2005 came to be issued to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, it was decided to construct partially constructed house and when defendant No.1 was in process of raising construction, one Shri Krishan Gopal filed a Civil Suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla and obtained status quo vide Order dated 28.10.2005. Defendant No.1 has further alleged in the written statement that plaintiffs/their predecessors were offered Type-C and Type-B Houses and also the plot, but they refused to take the same. Defendant No.1 also alleged in the written statement that as per the observations of National Commission, it called tender for construction of House over plot No.188, but, on account of the stay order granted by the Civil Court, the same could not be undertaken and when the stay was vacated on 31.05.2006, the construction was started. 7. Defendant No.1 in the written statement also alleged that no allotment letter was ever issued to Smt. Shanti Devi on 18.12.1990 and she was only registered for allotment of house. Defendant No.1 further alleged in the written statement that though Smt. Shanti Devi expired on 28.07.1991, but, such fact was never brought to the notice of defendant No.1 till December, 1996 and since the year 1991 till December, 1996, plaintiff No.1 was making correspondence on behalf of a dead person. Defendant No.1 further alleged that another material fact was concealed by the plaintiffs that some of the plaintiffs already owned houses in Shimla, which disentitled them from claiming allotment of a house from defendant No.1. As per the terms of broacher, a person owning a house in Shimla was not entitled for allotment of any house. 8. Defendant No.2 also filed written statement and resisted the suit, but, lateron, she was proceeded ex-parte. Otherwise also, vide order dated 2.1.2017, plaintiffs got the name of defendant No.2 deleted. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed:- "1. 8. Defendant No.2 also filed written statement and resisted the suit, but, lateron, she was proceeded ex-parte. Otherwise also, vide order dated 2.1.2017, plaintiffs got the name of defendant No.2 deleted. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed:- "1. Whether late Smt.Shanti Devi, mother of the plaintiffs, was allotted the house in dispute, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs or their predecessor had preferential right and the allotments of houses in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are in violation of law, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the house in dispute, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether defendant No.3 is a necessary party to the suit? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit on account of their and their predecessor''s acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescence, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of constructive resjudicata, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1. 8. Whether the plaint has not been properly verified and the affidavit in support of plaint is improper, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1. 9. Whether the plaintiffs have no legal or enforceable cause of action to file and maintain the present suit, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1. 10. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, if so, who are such parties and its effect? OPD 11. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged, if so, what is the correct valuation, and its effect? OPD-1. 11-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the property and damages to the extent of Rs. 60 lacs, as alleged? OPP. 11-B Whether the plaintiff or their mother were entitled to the possession of Ist house built out of House No.415 & 416 and their price offered at the time of registration, charged from similar allottees amounting to Rs. 3,03,300.00 and not more if so its effect? OPP. 12. Relief." Issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 11-A and 11B:- 10. OPP. 11-B Whether the plaintiff or their mother were entitled to the possession of Ist house built out of House No.415 & 416 and their price offered at the time of registration, charged from similar allottees amounting to Rs. 3,03,300.00 and not more if so its effect? OPP. 12. Relief." Issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 11-A and 11B:- 10. All these issues being interconnected and inter linked can conveniently be disposed of together in order to avoid the repetition of evidence and findings and as such same are being taken up together for consideration. Onus to prove all these issues, besides issue No.5, is on the plaintiffs. Onus to prove issue No.5 is on the defendants. 11. It is not in dispute that Smt.Shanti Devi, mother of the plaintiffs, had applied for allotment of an independent house under 6th Self Financing Scheme, floated by the ''ENVP'' in the year 1989, rather defendant No.1 has categorically admitted in its written statement that Smt.Shanti Devi, vide application dated 14.12.1989, had applied for partially constructed house under 6th Self Financing Scheme and had deposited a sum of Rs. 45,150/- as earnest money. Defendant No.1 has also admitted that Smt.Shanti Devi (since deceased) was registered for the house vide registration dated 18.12.1990. But, there is no evidence led on record by the plaintiffs, be it oral or documentary, that pursuant to aforesaid registration dated 18.12.1990, house, if any, ever came to be allotted in the name of Smt.Shanti Devi, whereas, record reveals that defendant No.2 Smt.Veena Sethi was registered originally for Type-C partially constructed house under 5th Self Financing Scheme, applied vide her application dated 18.12.1989, and deposited a sum of Rs. 33,190/-. She was allotted Type-C house No.415, partly constructed, vide allotment letter dated 24.7.1995. Record further reveals that regular allotment was made in her favour at the cost of Rs. 4,97,610/- on 15.3.1997. Similarly, another allotment of Type-C house No.416 was made in the name of Ms.Vijay Kumari, defendant No.3, vide letter dated 19.7.1995 at the cost of Rs. 6,30,940/- as per the approval of Board of Director of ''ENVP''. Both the defendants in their written statement have categorically stated that they had applied for house under 5th Self Financing Scheme and they have been allotted house in accordance with law. 6,30,940/- as per the approval of Board of Director of ''ENVP''. Both the defendants in their written statement have categorically stated that they had applied for house under 5th Self Financing Scheme and they have been allotted house in accordance with law. Documents available on record, which never came to be refuted by the plaintiffs, clearly suggest that both the defendants i.e. defendants No.2 and 3 were registered for Type-C houses, under altogether different Financing Scheme, and they were allotted partly constructed houses on the payment of total amount as per approval of the Board of Directors of ''ENVP''. Name of defendant No.2 was subsequently ordered to be deleted from the array of parties on the request having been made by the plaintiffs vide order dated 2.1.2007. 12. If the statement of plaintiff No.1, who appeared as PW-1, is carefully perused, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, representing defendant No.1, that there is nothing on record to suggest that defendants No.2 and 3 were allotted partially constructed houses, ignoring the claim of Smt.Shanti Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, who had actually registered herself for allotment of independent house under 6th Self Financing Scheme and not under 5th Self Financing Scheme. Record clearly reveals that houses came to be allotted to defendants No.2 and 3 were under 5th Self Financing Scheme, hence, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that house Nos.415 and 416 rightly came to be allotted in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 respectively under 5th Self Financing Scheme and Smt.Shanti Devi, mother of the plaintiffs, was never allotted the house in dispute i.e. house No.415 and 416, rather, on 18.12.1990, her name was registered for allotment of Type C-II, partially constructed house under 6th Self Financing Scheme and as such it cannot be said that the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest have/had preferential right of the allotment of aforesaid houses in their favour, which infact came to be allotted in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 vide letter dated 24.7.1995 and 15.3.1997 respectively. Since defendant No.3 had applied for allotment of partially constructed house under 5th Self Financing Scheme and she was entitled for partially constructed house under that Scheme, she cannot be said to be necessary party. Accordingly, all the issues are decided in favour of defendant No.1 and against the plaintiffs. Issue No.5: 13. Since defendant No.3 had applied for allotment of partially constructed house under 5th Self Financing Scheme and she was entitled for partially constructed house under that Scheme, she cannot be said to be necessary party. Accordingly, all the issues are decided in favour of defendant No.1 and against the plaintiffs. Issue No.5: 13. In the case at hand plaintiff No.1 appeared as PW- 1 and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and exhibited documents Ext. P-1 to P-20. In cross examination, he categorically admitted that he owned and possessed Flat No.725, which has already been allotted by HIMUDA. He also admitted that he applied for the flat in the year 1989 and the possession of the said flat was handed over to him in the year 1997. He also admitted that his brother Shri Anil Kanga, plaintiff No.4, also owned and possessed a flat at Strawberry Hills Shimla, which was also allotted by defendant No.1, for which application was made in the year 1996 and possession was delivered in 1998. He admitted Ex.D-1, the order of National Commission, dated 14.07.2004 and further admitted that the communication Ext. D-2 after the decision of National Commission was received by him from defendant No.1, but, he never responded to the same. He also admitted having GPA on behalf of his brothers and sisters. He further admitted that no reply to Ext. D-3, received by him from defendant No.I, was given by him on the ground that the cost was too high. He categorically admitted in his cross-examination that during the lifetime of his mother Smt. Shanti Devi, no specific plot/area was allotted in her favour. He stated that she was registered with HIMUDA under the Scheme. He further admitted that under the terms and conditions of HIMUDA, a person owing a house/plot is not entitled for allotment of any other house/ plot. 14. DW-1 Shri Kalma Nand Sharma, Senior Assistant, HIMUDA, has stated that Smt. Shanti Devi Kanga, mother of the plaintiffs, was not allotted any house by defendant No.1. He brought the original letter dated 17.12.1996 Ext.DW-1/H, whereby intimation regarding the death of Smt.Shanti Devi was given to defendant, but, no death certificate was sent alongwith the letter. He also proved Ext. DW-1 Shri Kalma Nand Sharma, Senior Assistant, HIMUDA, has stated that Smt. Shanti Devi Kanga, mother of the plaintiffs, was not allotted any house by defendant No.1. He brought the original letter dated 17.12.1996 Ext.DW-1/H, whereby intimation regarding the death of Smt.Shanti Devi was given to defendant, but, no death certificate was sent alongwith the letter. He also proved Ext. DW-1/J, letter dated 12.01.1994, sent to Smt. Shanti Devi intimating therein about the cost of the escalation of house and was also asked to pay, but, no response was received from her. He proved Ex.DW- 1/M, the order dated 17.12.2002, passed by the District Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No.309/1996, Ex.DW- 1/n, the Order of H.P. State Commission as well as Ex.DW- 1/0 the order of National Commission, Ex.DW-1/P letter sent to the plaintiffs by defendant No.1, offering fully constructed house No.188, Type-C, Phase-ll Sector 3, New Shimla for a sum of Rs. 21,69,034/-, which was deposited by the plaintiffs under protest and possession of the house was taken over by the plaintiffs on 20.09.2007. He also stated that no specific objection with regard to cost of the house was raised by the plaintiffs. 15. In rebuttal, plaintiff No.1 again appeared and admitted that Flat No. 725 was allotted to him after the death of his mother and further admitted that Anil Kanga was also allotted a house. The issue is decided in favour of the defendant No.1, accordingly. Issues No.6, 7,8, 9, 10 and 11. 16. All these issues are interconnected and interlinked, therefore, taken up together for decision. It is quiet apparent from the pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties that before filing the instant suit, plaintiffs had filed complaint No.309/1996 before the District Forum at Shimla, seeking therein similar relief i.e. damages. Matter with regard to damages claimed by the plaintiff was adjudicated by the District Forum at Shimla, H.P. State Commission as well as National Commission and as such this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr.Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the defendant No.1, that since the plaintiffs in the year 1996, by way of complaint filed before the District Forum, Shimla had claimed damages, they are estopped from filing the present suit, seeking therein compensation. Ex.DW-1/M, complaint filed before the District Forum at Shimla by the plaintiffs, suggests that the plaintiffs had filed complaint, seeking therein direction against the ''ENVP'' for handing over the possession of an independent house complete in all respect and also to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of possession. Plaintiff also claimed in the aforesaid complaint that ''ENVP'' should pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages for harassment and mental torture. Plaintiffs also claimed a sum of Rs.one lac on account of rental of the flat from the date of its committed delivery. The District Forum at Shimla vide its order dated 17.12.2002 directed defendant No.1 to allot and hand over the independent house to the plaintiffs as and when Ist house shall be constructed by it at the amount fixed by defendant No.1. District Forum also ordered that defendant No.1 should try to construct such a house within a period of one year from the date of order. It also ordered that the plaintiff shall be entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the deposits made by them with the defendant No.1 till the possession of the hose delivered. 17. Though, defendant No.1, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the District Forum, Shimla filed an appeal before the H.P. State at Shimla, but the same was dismissed on 17.12.2003 (Ex.DW-1/N). Similarly, a Revision Petition No.1164/2004 filed before the National Commission was also dismissed on 14.7.2004 (Ex.DW-1/O) with certain observations. Record reveals that as per observations of National Commission, defendant No.1 sent a communication to the plaintiffs, intimating therein the tentative cost of the house, which fact stands duly proved in the crossexamination of PW-1. Vide aforesaid communication, it was intimated that the house is likely to be completed within 1 years and the plaintiffs were asked to give their consent within 30 days from the issue of letter regarding the construction of house. Plaintiff No.1 in response to letter dated 17.9.2004 asked for a copy of order dated 14.7.2004, passed by the National Commission and it was also intimated that Smt.Shanti Devi (since deceased) had applied for Type-C-II house under 6th Self Financing Scheme and not for the accommodation as stated above. Plaintiff No.1 in response to letter dated 17.9.2004 asked for a copy of order dated 14.7.2004, passed by the National Commission and it was also intimated that Smt.Shanti Devi (since deceased) had applied for Type-C-II house under 6th Self Financing Scheme and not for the accommodation as stated above. Defendant No.1 requested the plaintiffs to give their consent within 15 days, if they wanted fully constructed or partly constructed house, so that tentative cost of partly constructed house could be intimated, but since no response was received, reminders dated 15.1.2005 and 24.5.2005 came to be issued to the plaintiffs. Even, thereafter no response came from the plaintiffs and, as such, department decided to construct a partially constructed house and Executive Engineer was asked vide letter dated 7.6.2005 to send estimates immediately. Record further reveals that though the construction had started, but, in the meantime, one Shri Krishan Gopal filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla and obtained a status quo order on 28.10.2005, which was subsequently vacated on 31.5.2006 and construction work was restarted. Evidence adduced on record by defendant No.1, which has not been refuted/rebutted by the plaintiffs, clearly suggests that they were offered Type-C, Type-B Houses and also plot, after the orders having been passed by the National Commission, but they refused to take the same and, as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs suffered irreparable loss, mental and physical agony and harassment for the said reasons. 18. Leaving everything aside, once the plaintiffs had already approached the District Forum, Shimla, seeking therein directions to the department to hand over the possession of the house applied for by their mother late Smt.Shanti Devi and to pay them damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.one lac on account of rental of the flat, which prayer of them was partly accepted by the District Forum, Shimla, they are estopped from filing the present suit, seeking therein possession and damages to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs. Otherwise also, no positive evidence has been led on record by the plaintiffs justifying therein their claim of Rs. 60 lacs allegedly suffered by them on account of delay, if any, caused by defendant No.1 in handing over the possession. 19. 60 lacs. Otherwise also, no positive evidence has been led on record by the plaintiffs justifying therein their claim of Rs. 60 lacs allegedly suffered by them on account of delay, if any, caused by defendant No.1 in handing over the possession. 19. Careful perusal of order passed by the District Forum, Shimla, in a complaint having been filed by the plaintiffs, clearly suggests that it had ordered that defendant No.1 shall handover independent house to the plaintiffs as and when first house is constructed by the defendant at the amount fixed by it, meaning thereby, costs of the house was to be fixed by defendant No.1 and as such, at this stage, plaintiffs cannot claim that the defendant No.1 be directed to give them possession of the house on the price offered at the time of registration and allotment as given to the other defendants No.2 and 3. There is no document adduced on record by the plaintiffs that they, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the District Forum, H.P. State Commission and National Commission, filed appeal, if any, in the Hon''ble Apex Court and, as such, the same has attained finality qua the parties. 20. There is another aspect of the matter that factum with regard to the death of Smt.Shanti Devi i.e. original applicant, never came to the notice of defendant No.1 till 1996, whereas Smt.Shanti Devi had expired on 28.7./1991, meaning thereby between the years 1991 to 1996, plaintiffs kept on corresponding with the defendant-department fraudulently in the name of deceased Smt.Shanti Devi without disclosing that she had expired. There appears to be considerable force in the arguments of Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.1, that factum with regard to death of Smt.Shanti Devi was purposely concealed because some of the plaintiffs had already got properties from defendant No.1 under various Schemes at Shimla and they could not be allotted another property/house. Factum with regard to allotment of the property(s) to PW-1 and plaintiff No.4 Anil Kanga, in their favour by defendant No1, stands duly admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination. This witness has categorically admitted that under the terms and conditions of HIMUDA, a person owing a house/plot is not entitled to allotment of any other house/plot. 21. Factum with regard to allotment of the property(s) to PW-1 and plaintiff No.4 Anil Kanga, in their favour by defendant No1, stands duly admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination. This witness has categorically admitted that under the terms and conditions of HIMUDA, a person owing a house/plot is not entitled to allotment of any other house/plot. 21. Leaving everything aside, in the case at hand, record reveals that the plaintiffs have already got a fully constructed house No.188, Type-C, Phase-II, Sector-3, New Shimla for a sum of Rs. 21,69,034/-. Though plaintiffs have claimed that such amount was deposited in protest, but, such fact, if any, may have no relevance because District Forum, Shimla in its order has categorically stated that price is to be fixed by the defendants and no appeal, if any, against that order ever came to be filed by the plaintiffs. 22. DW-1 has categorically stated that no specific objection with regard to costs of the house was ever raised by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 in his rebuttal has categorically admitted that flat No.725 was allotted to him after the death of his mother and plaintiff No.4 Anil Kanga was allotted a house. As per own statement of PW-1, a person owing a house/plot is not entitled for allotment of any other house/plot. But, in the case at hand, defendant No.1, ignoring the fact that plaintiffs No.1 and 4 have already been allotted house/plot in the years 1989 and 1998 respectively, has allotted constructed house for a sum of Rs. 21,69,034/- and as such, there is no question of claiming compensation/damages, if any, by way of filing present suit, which otherwise is hopelessly time barred. 23. It is not in dispute that the application by Smt.Shanti Devi was filed in the year 1989 for allotment of independent house under 6th Self Financing Scheme and as per own case set up by the plaintiffs, she was registered for the house vide registration dated 18.12.1990. As per plaintiffs cause of action to them firstly accrued on 18.12.1994, when claim of their mother for allotment of house was ignored and defendants No.2 and 3 were allotted houses in violation of rules of the HIMUDA. As per plaintiffs cause of action to them firstly accrued on 18.12.1994, when claim of their mother for allotment of house was ignored and defendants No.2 and 3 were allotted houses in violation of rules of the HIMUDA. Plaintiffs have also claimed that cause of action still continued because defendant failed to deliver the possession of the house despite their being order of District Forum, Shimla, which was affirmed up to the National Commission, for the price offered to their mother or on the charges received from defendants No.2 and 3 by defendant No.1. 24. If the arguments advanced by Shri K.S. Patyal, learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiffs, are accepted that cause of action had accrued for the first time in favour of the plaintiffs on 18.12.1994, suit, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be well within prescribed limitation because admittedly, suit at hand came to be filed in the year 2006 i.e. after 11 years. It appears that since claim of the plaintiffs had already become stale, they purposely filed complaint before the District Forum, Shimla, so that limitation is gained, but that may not be of any help, especially in view of relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the complaint having been field by them in the District Forum at Shimla. Since District Forum, Shimla in the plaint having been field by the plaintiffs has already adjudicated the claim of the plaintiffs qua damages/compensation, if any, on account of delay in delivering the possession of the house by the defendant, present suit is not maintainable. Otherwise also, mere filing of complaint before District Forum will not give limitation to the party approaching the Court after a considerable delay i.e. 11 years in the present case. All these issues are, therefore, decided in favour of defendant No.1 and against the plaintiffs. Relief: 25. In view of the findings on all the above issues, the present suit is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.