Malik Bhupinder Singh & Ors. vs Shri Raj Gupta & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2971 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                               Date of Reserve: May 14, 2010
                                                                  Date of Order: June 04, 2010
+ IA 11743/2009 in CS(OS) 513/1994
%                                                                                   04.06.2010
       Malik Bhupinder Singh & Ors.                                         ...Plaintiffs
       Through: Mr. Divjeet Singh Vohar, Advocate

         Versus

         Shri Raj Gupta & Ors.                                              ...Defendants
         Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate


         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

1. This application has been made under Section 152 read with Section 151 CPC by

the judgment debtors no.1 to 3 with a prayer for modifying the last paragraph of the

judgment on the ground that an error crept in the last paragraph of the judgment wherein

it was recorded that the defendants who were liable to pay the amount and in whose

favour sale deeds were to be executed.

2. I have heard both the parties on the application. A perusal of suit filed by plaintiffs

would show that plaintiffs in the prayer specifically stated that he had to recover the

balance amount from defendants no.1 to 8 and wanted compensation/ damages against

defendants no.1 to 8 for breach of agreement. However, while passing the judgment

dated 28th April, 2008, this Court granted following reliefs:

"6. Relief: The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.12.5 lac and interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.3.1994. The

CS(OS) 513/1994 Malik Bhupinder Singh & Ors. v. Raj Gupta & Ors. Page 1 Of 2 amount would be payable by defendants after plaintiffs execute the sale deeds and get them registered in presence of the Sub- Registrar of Properties."

3. The prayer made by applicants/plaintiffs was only vis-à-vis defendants no.1 to 8

and not against all the defendants. Plaintiffs though had made other defendants as a

party to the present suit but had not sought any relief against them. I, therefore, consider

that an error crept in the order dated 28th April, 2008 wherein instead of writing

'defendants no.1 to 8', 'defendants' was written.

4. In view of the above reasons, the application is allowed and the order dated 28th

April, 2008 is hereby modified and the modified order shall read as under:

"6. Relief: The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.12.5 lac and interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.3.1994. The amount would be payable by defendants no.1 to 8 after plaintiffs execute the sale deeds and get the same registered in presence of the Sub-Registrar of Properties."

5. The application stands disposed of in terms of above order.

June 04, 2010                                                               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CS(OS) 513/1994          Malik Bhupinder Singh & Ors. v. Raj Gupta & Ors.              Page 2 Of 2