Delhi High Court
Lt. Col. B.M.K. Khosla vs Raj Kumar Khosla And Ors. on 18 September, 2007
Bench: M Sharma, S Khanna
ORDER
1. This appeal filed by Lt. Col. B.M.K. Khosla is directed against the order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA Nos. 10371-72/2006 arising out of CS(OS) No. 2520/1996. The cause title of the appeal and also the relief clause support the aforesaid conclusions.
2. IA No. 10372/2006 was filed for seeking exemption from filing of original documents. The learned Single Judge has considered the relevant facts and documents while disposing of several applications vide order dated 14th March, 2007. Intra Court appeal against the order disposing of IA No. 10372/2006 is not maintainable as the said order cannot be regarded as a judgment. It has also not been shown to us that the documents enclosed with IA No. 10372/2006 were not considered by the learned Single Judge because they were copies and not originals.
3. IA No. 10371/2006 was filed for modification of the order dated 12th May, 2006 disposing of IA No. 2366/2004
4. We have examined the original suit file. IA No. 2366/2004 was filed by the appellant-defendant No. 2 seeking an order for determination of the nature of the properties sought to be sold. The said application was dismissed in view of detailed order passed in IA No. 5497/2006 on 12th May, 2006 dealing with contentions of the appellant.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, we do not think it is a fit case in which we should interfere and issue notice to the respondents. Father of the parties, Sh. Nakul Dev Dev Khosla has left behind several properties including a house in Delhi, house in Jalandhar, some agricultural land and another house in Village Rahon, Punjab. He has left behind four sons including the appellant. A suit for partition was filed in 1996. On 20th May, 1998, a preliminary decree was passed as the parties admitted that each one was entitled to 1/4th share in the properties. Liberty was given to the parties to mutually decide how the properties were to be divided by means of partition. On 12th October, 1999, it was broadly agreed between the parties that the properties should be sold and proceeds should be distributed.
6. On 29th May, 2003, a final decree was passed. The appellant-defendant No. 2 challenged the decree in the appeal, which was dismissed. Special Leave Petition was also filed but was dismissed. The decree has thus become final and binding between the parties.
7. After the final decree was passed, the appellant-defendant No. 2 pleaded and claimed that the property in Delhi was belonged to Hindu Undivided Family. He relied upon judgment passed in a Civil Suit by Jalandhar Court. The plea was rejected. This plea was also taken in the appellate proceedings against the final decree but did not find favor. The contentions and submissions of the appellant/defendant No. 2 in this regard were considered on 12th May, 2006 and IA No. 5497/2006 was dismissed dealing with all contentions raised.
8. The appellant again raised similar contentions and issues by filing applications under different provisions. These applications were disposed of vide order dated 14th March, 2007, wherein the court noticed that the preliminary and the final decree have become final and binding and the question that the property in Delhi was owned by Hindu Undivided Family was raised but was not accepted.
9. The appellant has filed several appeals against each of the applications disposed of and decided vide order dated 14th March, 2007 raising similar points and contentions. The basic and principal plea of the appellant-defendant No. 2 is that the property in Delhi belongs to Hindu Undivided Family. The said plea has been considered and rejected on three occasions. Firstly, when final decree was upheld, secondly, in order dated 12th May, 2006 and lastly, when order dated 14th March, 2007 was passed disposing of IA No. 12163/2006, IA No. 13229/2006 etc. We have already upheld the orders and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant-defendant No. 2 challenging order dated 14th March, 2007 questioning and challenging the final decree dated 29th May, 2003.
10. In these circumstances, we do not find it necessary to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge. Having considered and examined the matter on merit, we find that no ground to modify the order dated 12th May, 2006. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.
