Delhi High Court
Shri S.C.Jain vs Delhi State And Infrastructural ... on 17 August, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.55/2011 & CM Nos. 6194-95/2011
% 17th August, 2011
SHRI S.C.JAIN ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Rajiv Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
DELHI STATE AND INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta and Mr. Prateek Kohli,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the 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?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal under
Section 100 CPC, is to the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court
dated 14.2.2011, and by which judgment the Appellate Court accepted
the appeal of the present respondent and dismissed the suit of the
present appellant/plaintiff, and by which suit effectively the appellant
wanted allotment of a plot in his own name instead of an allotment in the
name of M/s. Pramod Engineering Works, a sole proprietary concern of his
son Sh. Pramod Kumar.
RSA No.55/2011 Page 1 of 4
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent issued a letter dated
7.5.2004 allotting a plot to M/s Pramod Engineering Works on account of
the policy of relocation. M/s Pramod Engineering Works was asked to
make payment for the plot of 100 sq. meters at the rate of Rs.4200/- per
sq. meters within 60 days from the allotment letter dated 7.5.2004 and
thereafter for another 45 days with interest at 18%. This allotment letter
was responded to on behalf of M/s Pramod Engineering Works by the
present plaintiff/Sh. S.C.Jain, who is the father of Sh. Pramod Kumar. The
appellant/plaintiff, by his letter dated 6.7.2004 informed the respondent
that he would be ready to deposit the amount only if possession of the
plot was handed over to Sh. S.C.Jain/plaintiff. The respondent, in response,
wrote a letter dated 15.9.2004 requesting for certain documents and the
last of the document which was required was that the appellant should
give an affidavit that he is making the payment on behalf of his son as his
guardian. Therefore, by this letter, the respondent made it clear that the
allotment would be only to M/s Pramod Engineering Works whose sole
proprietor was Sh. Pramod Kumar and payment of the same is accepted
from Sh. S.C.Jain on behalf of his son as his guardian. No payment was
made by Sh. S.C.Jain after submitting the documents vide letter dated
12.10.2004 and which led to the respondent issuing notices for payment
failing which for cancellation dated 7.2.2005, 17.4.2006, 18.5.2006 and
final dated 23.5.2006. This resulted in the appellant/S.C.Jain filing the
subject suit in June, 2006, in which it was prayed, inter alia, for allotment
of the plot in the name of the appellant.
RSA No.55/2011 Page 2 of 4
3. Though certain issues were raised before the trial court with respect
to failure of the appellant to make the payment within time and the
consequent cancellation, however, the only issue which was decided by
the Appellate Court and is also an issue before me is, whether the
appellant is entitled to allotment of the plot in place of his son Sh. Pramod
Kumar. On 4.4.2011, a learned Single Judge of this court had directed
personal appearance of Sh. Pramod Kumar and also for the respondent to
consider the proposal for allotment in the name of Sh. S.C.Jain/plaintiff.
On 30.5.2011, it was recorded that Sh. Pramod Kumar was not present as
per the direction in the order dated 4.4.2011 and the counsel for the
respondent stated that there is no policy for allotment to a person other
than the person who was entitled to a plot in terms of the relocation
scheme.
4. A reference to the prayer made in the plaint and also the
correspondence exchanged shows that the plaintiff was insisting on
allotment in his personal name before making payment of the price. The
basic issue of relocation would be that the person who is carrying out
business in a non-conforming area will stop his business in a non-
conforming area and will shift to the conforming area where a plot is
allotted. Once Sh. Pramod Kumar who was carrying on the business of
M/s Pramod Engineering Works is found to be of unsound mind, there
would not arise the position of said Sh. Pramod Kumar carrying on
business in the alternative plot allotted in the conforming area. As stated
by the respondent, there is no question of substitution of a family
RSA No.55/2011 Page 3 of 4
member, in his own right, including of a father, in place of an original
allottee.
5. Accordingly, in my opinion, there does not arise any issue of
allotment of a plot directly in the name of the plaintiff/Sh. S.C.Jain, as per
the relief claimed in the plaint. The issue with regard therefore of failure
to make the payment or that not being a formal cancellation letter, is
really irrelevant.
6. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises because
there cannot be allotment of a plot in the name of the substitutee as per
the policy of the respondent. Admittedly, the suit does not claim the relief
of allotment of the plot in the name of Sh. Pramod Kumar. There is
therefore no merit in the appeal and the applications which are
accordingly dismissed.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the
respondent be directed to refund a sum of approximately Rs. 43,000/-
which was deposited by the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent.
Accordingly, let the respondent refund whatever amount has been
deposited by Sh. S.C.Jain with it within a period of two months from today
along with the interest at 6% per annum from the date when the amount
was deposited with the respondent by the appellant/plaintiff.
AUGUST 17, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
