Chaman Parkash Gupta vs Rajinder Kumar Gupta & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 64 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Judgment Pronounced on: 06.01.2011

+           CS(OS) No. 656/2010 & I.A. 15517/2010

Chaman Parkash Gupta                                    .....Plaintiff

                                 - versus -

Rajinder Kumar Gupta & Anr                             .....Defendants

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: None.
For the Defendant: Dr. Suraj Singh for D-1 to D-3.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                                  No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                           No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                          No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. No one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff even

on the 3rd call.

This is a suit for partition and permanent

injunction with respect to property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi,

Naraina, New Delhi-110028.

2. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are real

brothers. The case of the plaintiff is that he along with

defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their mother late Smt. Kamla

Devi formed a partnership firm under the name and style of

M/s Chaman Parkash and Bros and the firm purchased plot

No.Z-240, measuring 125 sq. yards situated in the lay out

plan of Naraina Ware Housing Scheme, from the DDA on

29th August, 1975. This is also the case of the plaintiff that

all the partners had 25% share each in the profits and

losses of the firm and the partnership business is lying

closed since the year 1998. The share of the mother Kamla

Devi is stated to have devolved on the plaintiff and

defendants 1 to 4, who are her sons. This is also the

allegation of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have

agreed to sell the aforesaid property to M/s Bharat Steel

Traders, which is defendant No.5 in this suit, and have also

received a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- from it. It has been

alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 broke open the locks

which had earlier been put on the suit property and

replaced them by their own locks. The plaintiff has now

claimed partition of the aforesaid property. Defendant Nos.

3 and 4, who are the other brothers, were not the partners

of the firm M/s Chaman Prakash and Bros.

3. The suit has been contested by defendant Nos. 1 to

3. The case of the defendants is that the suit property

belonged exclusively to defendant No.1 Rajinder Kumar

Gupta and was purchased in his name from his individual

funds.

4. It is stated in the application ( I.A. 15517/2010)

that the parties being real brothers had agreed to redress

their disputes through arbitration vide agreement dated 19 th

April, 2010, with respect to four properties including

property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, which

is the subject matter of the present suit. It is further stated

that the arbitrators have already been appointed and the

arbitration is at an advanced stage.

5. A perusal of the arbitration agreement dated 19th

April, 2010 would show that the plaintiff Chaman Prakash

Gupta is one of the parties to the agreement. Vide this

agreement, the plaintiff Chaman Prakash Gupta and his

brothers Rajender Kumar Gupta, Sushil Prakash Gupta,

Ashok Kumar Gupta and Raj Kishen Gupta agreed to

submit all their disputes regarding ownership and

possession of four properties mentioned in para 5 of the

agreement for resolution of disputes by an arbitration panel

consisting of Shri Rakesh Bansal, Shri Bhupender Kumar

Goel and Shri Laxmi Narain Goel. They further agreed that

in case of difference of opinion amongst the arbitrators, the

opinion of Shri Rakesh Bansal, who shall be the presiding

arbitrator, shall prevail amongst the arbitrators. The

arbitrators were given liberty to decide the time, venue and

language of the arbitration as per their convenience. The

parties to the agreement also agreed that the award shall be

final, conclusive and binding on them and shall not be

revoked by the death of any of them before making of the

award. One of the properties mentioned in para 5 of the

agreement is property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New

Delhi, which is the property, subject matter of this suit.

6. The applicant has also placed on record a copy of

the order dated 16.9.2010 passed by this Court in CS(OS)

No.1430/2001 wherein, noticing the reference of the

disputes to arbitration in terms of the agreement between

the parties, this Court dismissed the suit.

7. Since the disputes between the parties with respect

to property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, which is the

only property, subject matter of this suit, have already been

referred to arbitration and the arbitration is in advance

stage, the suit cannot be continued further. The suit is

accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own

costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

JANUARY 06, 2011 vk