Delhi High Court
S.S. Associates vs Rajinder Kumar Lamba & Ors. on 24 September, 2008
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(OS) No. 65/2008
RESERVED ON : September 22nd, 2008
% DATE OF DECISION: September 24th, 2008
S.S. Associates ..... Appellant.
Through: Mr. Ajeet Prasad Aggarwal,
Advocate.
Versus
Rajinder Kumar Lamba & Ors. ....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with
Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure against the partial
judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2008 passed by learned Single
Judge in CS(OS) No. 2100/1996. By the virtue of the impugned order,
learned Single Judge has passed a decree for specific performance of
the Agreement dated 27th September, 1995 against Shri Narinder
Singh (Respondent No. 2 herein) to the extent of his 2/7th undivided
share in the property bearing No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New
Delhi. However, learned Single Judge has neither granted relief of
possession nor a declaration that the Agreement executed between
the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was illegal and void. On
these aspects the learned Single Judge has observed that the case is
required to be put to trial and needs to be adjudicated.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that in the suit
filed by the Plaintiff - Respondent No. 1 there was a misjoinder of
parties as the original Plaintiff - Respondent No. 1 had no privity of
contract with the Appellant. It was further submitted that the Plaintiff -
Respondent No. 1 had no locus to impugn the Agreement to Sell
executed between the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - who
happen to be 5/7th owner of the suit property. He further pointed out
that a suit for partition was already pending between the earstwhile
owners of the suit property. Learned Counsel for Appellant also
sought to rely upon a judgment of the Apex Court in A. Abdul Rashid
Khan & Ors. Vs. P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid & Ors. reported in (2000)
10 SCC 636 wherein it was held that the relief of partition cannot be
granted in a suit for specific performance. Consequently the Appellant
contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff - Respondent No. 1 was
not maintainable.
3. However, in response to our queries, learned Counsel for
Appellant fairly stated that the Appellant had nothing to do with the
Agreement to Sell executed between the Respondent No. 2 and
Plaintiff - Respondent No. 1.
4. We are of the view that learned Single Judge has neither dealt
with nor decided any of the issues canvassed by the Appellant before
us. We are also of the opinion that the impugned order in no way
prejudices the rights of the Appellant. Consequently, we dispose of the
present appeal by observing that all arguments, contentions and
submissions are open to the Appellant (including the submissions
raised before us) and the same shall be dealt with by the learned
Single Judge in accordance with law at an appropriate stage.
MANMOHAN, J
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
September 24th, 2008
rn
