Paramjeet Singh vs Shri Sohan Singh & Others
2008 Latest Caselaw 1326 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       IA.No.13261/2007 & IA.No.8272/2007
                       in CS(OS) 778/2005

%                                     Date of decision :        12.08.2008

PARAMJEET SINGH                                           ....... Plaintiff
                              Through :     Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Plaintiff in person



                                          Versus

SHRI SOHAN SINGH & OTHERS                                 ........ Defendants
                              Through : Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate for Defendant No.1.

                                          Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Advocate for the DDA




CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
     1.

 Whether reporters of Local papers may                    Yes
        be allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                   Not Necessary

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported                  Not Necessary
        in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The plaintiff by this application seeks transfer of two suits

pending in the District Court and consolidation of the same with

the present suit. The defendant No.1 opposes the said prayer of

the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is the DDA.

2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for partition

and possession with respect to property No.A-112, Wazirpur

Industrial Area, Delhi. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant

No.1. The case in the plaint is that the plaintiff, the defendant

No.1 and Smt Inderjit Kaur (sister of defendant No.1) were

partners of M/s Calcutta Soap Mills vide partnership deed dated 1st

April, 1969 with the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 having 40%

share each and Smt Inderjit Kaur having the remaining 20% share;

that the defendant No.2 DDA allotted the industrial plot No.A-112,

Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi to M/s Calcutta Soap Mills having

the aforesaid three partners and perpetual lease deed was

executed in the name of M/s Calcutta Soap Mills; that in the year

1975 a new partnership was constituted under the name and style

of M/s Calcutta Soap Oil Industries having four partners i.e., the

plaintiff having 40% share, defendant No.1 having 40% share and

Shri Charanjeet Singh and Shri Gurmeet Singh, brothers of the

plaintiff, having 20% share each (sic); but the property aforesaid

remained in the name of M/s Calcutta Soap Mills and was not

transferred to the newly constituted Calcutta Soap Oil Industries.

3. The plaintiff has in the plaint itself stated of having

instituted two suits prior to the institution of the present suit. The

plaintiff has filed the first suit for declaration that relinquishment

deed earlier executed by him relinquishing his share in the

aforesaid property in favour of the defendant No.1 is illegal,

inoperative and unenforceable and for restraining the defendants

in the said suit for acting on the basis thereof. In the said suit, the

plaintiff besides impleading the defendants herein has also

impleaded his brothers Charanjeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh and

Smt Inderjit Kaur aforesaid as parties. The said three persons are

not parties to the present suit. The second suit was instituted by

the plaintiff for dissolution of Calcutta Soap Mills and Calcutta

Soap Oil Industries and for rendition of accounts with respect

thereto. It is the said two suits pending before the Additional

District Judge which are sought to be transferred to this court and

to be consolidated with the present suit. In the second suit also

besides the defendants herein, Shri Charanjeet Singh and Shri

Gurmeet Singh and Smt Inderjit Kaur are the defendants.

4. The proceedings in the second suit filed by the plaintiff

were stayed by an order dated 19th January, 1998 of this court

(where the suit was then pending) under Section 10 of the CPC.

This court, inter alia, held that the relief claimed in the second

suit was substantially the same as claimed in the first suit and

the dismissal of the first suit will non-suit the plaintiff in the

second suit also. That order has attained finality and the second

suit which is sought to be now transferred is still lying stayed in

pursuance to the said order.

5. It is interesting to note that the defendant No.1 in its

written statement in the present suit, inter alia, pleaded that the

present suit was also liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the

CPC, as the second suit had been stayed vide order dated 19th

January, 1998 aforesaid. The plaintiff filed a replication in which

the plaintiff denied that the proceedings in the present suit were

liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The plaintiff took

a stand that the present suit is concerned only with M/s Calcutta

Soap Mills while the first suit is concerned M/s Calcutta Soap Oil

Industries having four partners and having different constitution

and thus the two firms could not be confused.

6. The plaintiff would be entitled to transfer of the two suits,

to be tried with this suit, only if common questions of law and facts

are to be adjudicated in the three suits. I have perused the plaints

in the first and the second suit. As aforesaid, besides the parties

to the present suit, there are three other parties in those two suits.

When the plaintiff himself has stated that the firms subject matter

of the two suits are different, the plaintiff cannot seek transfer of

those two suits to this court to be consolidated alongwith the

present suit. On the contrary, if the stand of the plaintiff in the

replication is not correct, then the proceedings in the present suit

are liable to be stayed, as contended in the written statement of

defendant No.1. In fact, on a reading of the plaint in the first suit,

it appears that the stand of the plaintiff in the plaint in the present

suit is contradictory to the stand in the first suit. The plaintiff in

the plaint in the first suit has stated that the name of Calcutta

Soap Mills was changed to Calcutta Soap Oil Industries. The

plaintiff is now stating that they were two different firms.

7. We cannot also forget that the proceedings in the second

suit were stayed and the said order has attained finality and the

plaintiff now cannot be permitted to have the proceedings in the

said suit activated by way of this application.

8. The other two suits are pending in the court of minimum

pecuniary jurisdiction as per their valuation. Transfer of suit has

consequences, including as to right of appeal etc, on the parties.

As aforesaid, there are other parties also in those two suits, who

are not parties to this suit. The plaintiff has also not made out any

case for transfer of the same to this court for trial alongwith the

present suit.

The application is dismissed.

IA.No. 8272/2007

1. The plaintiff has in this suit for partition of immovable

property No.A-112, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi sought interim

relief of payment of 40% share in the rental income of the said

property which is stated to be of Rs 50,000/- per month.

2. The share of the plaintiff in the property is contested. The

defendant No.2 DDA has also filed a written statement which also

states that the property stands mutated in the name of defendant

No.1 as sole owner.

3. The plaintiff has claimed partition on the premise that he

was having 40% share in partnership firm M/s Calcutta Soap Mills

and in which the defendant No.1 had 40% share and the sister of

defendant No.1 Smt Inderjit Kaur had 20% share. Smt Inderjit

Kaur has not been impleaded as the party to the present suit.

4. The plaintiff has, prior to the institution of the present

suit, instituted a suit for declaration and injunction. In the plaint

in the said suit, the plaintiff admits executing a deed relinquishing

his share in the said property in favour of the defendant No.1. The

plaintiff, however, seeks declaration that the said relinquishment

deed is illegal and null and void on the ground that he had signed

the same in consideration of being promised other properties and

which had not been given to him. The said suit is still pending

adjudication. Till it is determined in the said suit whether the

relinquishment of share admittedly executed by the plaintiff is

invalid or not, the plaintiff cannot possibly have any share in the

said property and consequently does not have any right to claim

any interim relief of payment.

5. Not only so, the plaintiff has been denied the same relief

claimed in this application earlier also. The plaintiff had, besides

the aforesaid suit for declaration, filed another suit for dissolution

and rendition of accounts of the partnership firm. In the said suit

also, the plaintiff had filed an application for interim maintenance.

The said application being IA.No. 9973/1991 in CS(OS)220/1986

was dismissed vide order dated 9th November, 1995 of the learned

Single Judge of this court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal being

FAO(OS) 4/1996 to a Division Bench of this court which was also

dismissed vide order dated 4th January, 1996. From the record, it

appears that the plaintiff preferred a Special Leave Petition being

SLP Civil No.12226/1996 to the Apex Court which was also

dismissed. The plaintiff has, in the previously instituted suits also,

been applying for interim injunction and for appointment of

receiver with respect to the property and all the said reliefs have

also been declined to the plaintiff. The counsel for the defendant

No.1 has also invited the attention to the order dated 18 th March,

1991 of this court in IA.Nos.7565/1987, 432/1988 and 10436/1990

in suit No.220/1986, holding that plaintiff has a very weak case in

as much as the plaintiff had executed a dissolution deed and

which had been acted upon. There is on record order dated 4th

July, 2000 of Division Bench of this court in FAO(OS) 49/99

preferred by plaintiff from order dated 16th January, 1999 in

present suit dismissing application of plaintiff for keeping profit of

the firm Calcutta Soap Mills in a fixed deposit. The said appeal

was dismissed for the reason of plaintiff having in an earlier suit

pending in the District Court made a similar prayer which was

declined - The plaintiff preferred FAO No. 188/1998 against said

order which was dismissed on 28th August, 1998 - The plaintiff

preferred SLP (Civil) No. 2079/1999 which was dismissed on 8th

March, 1999.

6. The plaintiff who has been contesting this case in person

appears to be misusing the legal process by filing applications for

the same relief in different suits.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JUDGE August 12, 2008 M