THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: 06.01.2011
+ CS(OS) No. 656/2010 & I.A. 15517/2010
Chaman Parkash Gupta .....Plaintiff
- versus -
Rajinder Kumar Gupta & Anr .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: None.
For the Defendant: Dr. Suraj Singh for D-1 to D-3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in Digest?
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff even on the 3rd call.
This is a suit for partition and permanent injunction with respect to property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi-110028.
2. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers. The case of the plaintiff is that he along with CS(OS)No. 656/2010 Page 1 of 5 defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their mother late Smt. Kamla Devi formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Chaman Parkash and Bros and the firm purchased plot No.Z-240, measuring 125 sq. yards situated in the lay out plan of Naraina Ware Housing Scheme, from the DDA on 29th August, 1975. This is also the case of the plaintiff that all the partners had 25% share each in the profits and losses of the firm and the partnership business is lying closed since the year 1998. The share of the mother Kamla Devi is stated to have devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4, who are her sons. This is also the allegation of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have agreed to sell the aforesaid property to M/s Bharat Steel Traders, which is defendant No.5 in this suit, and have also received a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- from it. It has been alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 broke open the locks which had earlier been put on the suit property and replaced them by their own locks. The plaintiff has now claimed partition of the aforesaid property. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who are the other brothers, were not the partners of the firm M/s Chaman Prakash and Bros.
3. The suit has been contested by defendant Nos. 1 to CS(OS)No. 656/2010 Page 2 of 5
3. The case of the defendants is that the suit property belonged exclusively to defendant No.1 Rajinder Kumar Gupta and was purchased in his name from his individual funds.
4. It is stated in the application ( I.A. 15517/2010) that the parties being real brothers had agreed to redress their disputes through arbitration vide agreement dated 19 th April, 2010, with respect to four properties including property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, which is the subject matter of the present suit. It is further stated that the arbitrators have already been appointed and the arbitration is at an advanced stage.
5. A perusal of the arbitration agreement dated 19th April, 2010 would show that the plaintiff Chaman Prakash Gupta is one of the parties to the agreement. Vide this agreement, the plaintiff Chaman Prakash Gupta and his brothers Rajender Kumar Gupta, Sushil Prakash Gupta, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Raj Kishen Gupta agreed to submit all their disputes regarding ownership and possession of four properties mentioned in para 5 of the agreement for resolution of disputes by an arbitration panel consisting of Shri Rakesh Bansal, Shri Bhupender Kumar CS(OS)No. 656/2010 Page 3 of 5 Goel and Shri Laxmi Narain Goel. They further agreed that in case of difference of opinion amongst the arbitrators, the opinion of Shri Rakesh Bansal, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, shall prevail amongst the arbitrators. The arbitrators were given liberty to decide the time, venue and language of the arbitration as per their convenience. The parties to the agreement also agreed that the award shall be final, conclusive and binding on them and shall not be revoked by the death of any of them before making of the award. One of the properties mentioned in para 5 of the agreement is property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, which is the property, subject matter of this suit.
6. The applicant has also placed on record a copy of the order dated 16.9.2010 passed by this Court in CS(OS) No.1430/2001 wherein, noticing the reference of the disputes to arbitration in terms of the agreement between the parties, this Court dismissed the suit.
7. Since the disputes between the parties with respect to property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, which is the only property, subject matter of this suit, have already been referred to arbitration and the arbitration is in advance stage, the suit cannot be continued further. The suit is CS(OS)No. 656/2010 Page 4 of 5 accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2011 vk CS(OS)No. 656/2010 Page 5 of 5