Indraprastha Ice & Cold Storage vs Arenja & Co. & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1259 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                     Date of Reserve: March 24, 2009
                                                         Date of Order: April 08, 2009

+ RP 348/2008 in CRP 359/2006
%                                                            08.04.2009
     Indraprastha Ice & Cold Storage                  ...Petitioners
     Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Maninder Acharya,
     Advocates

       Versus

       Arenja & Co. & Ors.                            ...Respondents
       Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?



       ORDER

RP 348/2008

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the

order dated 11th September 2008 passed by this Court whereby this Court

observed that after passing of the order on leave to defend, respondents No.1

and 3 were granted conditional leave to defend on depositing an amount of

Rs.20 lac and the amount has been deposited within the time stipulated by

this Court and hence no injunction could be issued against respondents from

selling the other properties.

2. The contention of the petitioner/applicant in the review application is

that this Court had observed in its order dated 11th December 2001 that the

defendant was prepared to put his property ad measuring 2.7 acres Farm at

CRP 359/2006 Indraprastha Ice & Cold Storage vs. Arenja & Co. & Ors. Page 1 Of 3 Fatepur as security till the disposal of suit, the application was decided in

terms of this statement and respondent was directed that the security be

kept alive to the satisfaction of the Joint Registrar. The counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the order dated 11th September 2008 was contrary

to earlier order to continue the security till disposal of the suit.

3. I consider that this argument of the counsel for the applicant/ petitioner

is baseless. Vide order dated 6th November 2001, the counsel for defendant

No.3 had offered to give bank guarantee of Rs.20 lac and also offered that it

shall keep the bank guarantee alive till disposal of the suit and interim orders

with regard to the properties at Rajokri, Delhi be recalled. This Court directed

the respondent to furnish bank guarantee within two weeks. If the Court had

not been inclined to accept the bank guarantee in place of the property at

Rajokri, the Court would not have asked the respondent to file the bank

guarantee. At that time, disposal of the application for leave to defend was

pending. On next date of hearing i.e. 11th December 2001, the counsel for

respondents No.1 and 3 informed the Court that defendant was prepared to

put his property at Rajokri as security till leave to defend application was

heard and decided by the Court. The mentioning of "till disposal of the suit"

only seems to be superfluous. The Court then ordered for valuation of this

property so as to know what was the value of the property and it transpired

that the value of the property was Rs.49.55 lac. This valuation was recorded

by the Joint Registrar. In the meantime, the application for leave to defend

was decided by the trial court and the trial court granted conditional leave to

defend to the respondents No.1 and 3, on a condition of deposit of bank

guarantee to the tune of Rs.20 lac or filing a fixed deposit receipt issued by

scheduled bank for a sum of Rs.20 lac within a period of three weeks of the

CRP 359/2006 Indraprastha Ice & Cold Storage vs. Arenja & Co. & Ors. Page 2 Of 3 order of the Court. The trial court observed that the order of attachment of

immovable properties of the defendants made earlier till disposal of the leave

to defend application would stand vacated. Defendants No.1 and 3 complied

with this order and deposited Rs.20 lac in the Court. The petitioner, however,

preferred a revision petition against the order of the trial court granting

conditional leave to defend and prayed for dismissal of the application for

conditional leave to defend and passing of the decree in terms of the suit with

costs.

4. I consider that keeping in view this background of the case, no review

of the order dated 11th September 2008 is called for. The review application is

hereby dismissed. However, if the revision of the petitioner is allowed, the

petitioner would be at liberty to pray for passing an order on adequate

security.

April 08, 2009                                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd

CRP 359/2006 Indraprastha Ice & Cold Storage vs. Arenja & Co. & Ors. Page 3 Of 3