Prem Aggarwal vs Devika Gupta And Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 500 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This is a suit for the specific performance of an agreement dated 27th October, 1989 in respect of Property No. 127, Babu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.15,05,000/-. It has been stated that a sum of Rs.101/- had been paid in cash along with a cheque for a sum of Rs.15,000/- to late Sh. V.P. Gupta significantly the suit was not filled during the life time of Late Shri V.P. Gupta the alleged signatory of the Agreement to Sale. In the Written Statement the contesting defendants have stated, inter alia that Defendants No.2, the son of Late Shri V.P. Gupta had jointly purchased, with the latter, the property in suit. This is undoubtedly purely a legal issue which would be determined in the context of and on a perusal of the registered sale Deed. However, the widow of Late Shri V.P. Gupta, Defendant No.1 as well as his son , Defendant No.2 have categorically stated that the agreement relied upon was not executed by Late Shri V.P. Gupta and that the documents filled by the Plaintiff are fabricated, forged, contain interpolations and are not in the handwriting of Late Shri V.P. Gupta. various others legal objections have been raised including the submission that even if the forged document is taken into consideration, it does not contain all the necessary concomitants of an Agreement to sell and, therefore, has no legal efficacy. The Written Statement was filled on behalf of Defendant No.1 on 31st July, 1996 and on behalf of Defendant No.2 on 23rd April, 1996. Since then the case is languishing because of the Plaintiff's failure to file the Replication. The final opportunity for filling the Replication was granted by order dated 15th July, 1999. It contended by learned counsel for the Defendants that in order to further protract proceedings the Plaintiff has filled the IA 10771/1999. The present application is under order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the code of civil procedure.

2. In support of the application learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that in sub-paras (i), (vii) of para-1 of the preliminary submissions the Defendants have mentioned other transactions based on information received by them. It is his contention that this palpably is hearsay evidence and, therefore, these averments should be struck of. The argument is misconceived. At this stage a party is expected only to plead material particulars. How these particulars are to be proved is left to the trial stage. It is an unjustified prejudgment that these statements would be barred as hearsay since the defendants may well produce the witness from whom the statement originated. Thereafter, the general grievance that is made in these averments allegedly slanderous in respect of the Plaintiff and her husband. The grievance is articulated in general reference to para - 2,3and 5 to 7 of the preliminary submissions. No doubt the Defendant has made reference to other transaction as well as levelled aspersion against immoral or rather unethical and unprincipled character of the Plaintiff and her husband. The question is whether these pleadings to be struck of.

3. The suit is for specific performance of the contract, Had the execution of the agreement been admitted,perhaps the Plaintiff may have been justified in seeking recourse to order VI Rule 16. In such a case what would have to be proved by the plaintiff is her readiness and willingness to perform the agreement and her conduct in the existence and execution of other transaction may have been unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. where,however, as in the present case, Defendants have provided instances where the Plaintiff has claimed to have entered into numerous other similar agreements, these facts would be relevant in order to establish whether the agreement was infact executed and also whether the Plaintiff had sufficient funds to make payment against all these agreements. The execution of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff is itself under challenge, on the ground that it is fabricated and forged. The existence of facts substantiating this accusation by bringing in other transaction is certainly relevant. It affords a valid defense in the suit. The building of such facts is nor unnecessary frivolous or vexatious. If it discloses that the Plaintiff is involved in land scandals, it would not fall under the prescription of the word scandalous as used in this Rule. In a suit for specific performance it would be scandalous life for the defendants to urge points on the personal life of the Plaintiff which would have no bearing on the defense put forward. This is not so in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. I am therefore, satisfied that the application is wholly vexatious and appears to have been filled to delay the proceedings. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5000/- Which would ordinarily be paid to the contesting Defendant. However , in the present case I am directing that these costs be paid with in seven days by demand draft payable to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund ( for Draught), to be deposited with Registrar of this Court.