Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Premlata on 6 July, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
CM (M) No.839/2010
% Judgment reserved on: 2nd July, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 6th July, 2010
Rajesh Kumar Gupta,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Gupta,
R/o House No. 30, Gali No. 1A,
Durga Puri Ext. Shahdara,
Delhi.
....Petitioner.
Through: Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv.
Versus
Smt. Premlata
W/o Sh. Hari Prashad Sharma,
R/o 32/52, Gali No. 11,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.
....Respondent.
Through: Nemo.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed
against order dated 10th February, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge,
Delhi, vide which application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2)
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short as "Code" was
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner herein, filed a suit for Specific
Performance and Injunction on the basis of Agreement to Sell entered into by
respondent with him, on 21st May, 2002. On 24th May, 2007, petitioner came to
know that respondent herein, is trying to sell the suit property.
3. On 25th September, 2007, in the presence of respondent, trial court passed
restrain order against him.
4. In the written statement filed by the respondent, she disclosed that she has
disposed of the property in favour of Mr. Pradeep Sharma on 3rd May, 2007.
5. Under these circumstances, petitioner moved an application under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Mr. Pradeep Sharma in the array of respondent.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Mr. Pradeep Sharma,
being a subsequent purchaser, is a necessary party and as such impugned order is
liable to be set aside. In support of its contentions, Learned counsel cited a
decision reported as Azhar Sultana Vs. B. Rajamani & Ors., II (2009) SLT 418,
Supreme Court of India.
7. Present petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of
India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this article is limited.
8. In Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and Ors., 2009 (1)SCALE71,
Supreme Court held;
"The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 & 227 of the Constitution is limited. It could
have set aside the orders passed by the Learned trial
court and Revisional Court only on limited ground,
namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety".
9. In Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Anr. Vs. Pratapsing Mohansing
Pardeshi Deceased through his Heirs and Legal representatives,
JT1995(7)SC400, Apex Court observed;
"The High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited
prerogative to correct all species of hardship or
wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of
grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where
grave injustice would be done unless the High Court
interferes."
10. As per findings of the trial court, suit property had already been sold on
3rd May, 2007, whereas the suit was filed by the petitioner on 30th May, 2007. In
this regard, impugned order read as under:
"The record reveals that the suit has been filed by the
Plaintiff on 30.5.2007. The defendant in her written
statement has submitted that the suit property has been
sold on 03.05.2007 itself to Shri Pradeep Sharma. The
Plaintiff concealed this material fact which resulted in
passing a direction by this court on 25.05.2007. Since the
suit itself had become infructuous as the Defendant was no
more the owner of the suit property, the impleadment of
buyer, namely, Shri Pradeep Sharma is not at all necessary
particularly when the suit itself is infructuous. The
application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed".
11. As per above findings, the petitioner had concealed the material facts, that
property in question was already sold on 3rd May, 2007. Thus, it resulted in
passing of directions by the trial court on 25th May, 2007.
12. Under these circumstances, the case cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. Hence, I do not find any illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order
passed by the trial court. Since, petitioner has concealed the material facts before
the trial court, the present petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
14. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs with Registrar General of this
court, within four weeks from today.
15. List for compliance on 9th August, 2010.
6th July, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
ab
