M/S Design Atelier vs M/S Loh Vanijya (P) Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 86 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                   Judgment Pronounced on: 07.01.2011


+           CCP NO. 54/2010 IN CS(OS) No.37/2005

M/S DESIGN ATELIER                             .....Plaintiff

                          - versus -

M/S LOH VANIJYA (P) LTD.                       .....Defendant

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff:      Mr. N. Waziri with Mr. Nagrath,
                        Advs.
For the Defendant:      Mr Harpreet Singh, Adv. for D-1
                        Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
                        Mr T.K. Tiwary and Mr Nikhil
                        Bhalla, Advs. for 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. This is a suit for specific performance of the

agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1

M/s Loh Vanijya (P) Ltd. in favour of the plaintiff for sale of

property No.B-190, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New

Delhi.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 had

agreed to sell the above-referred property to it for a

consideration of Rs 31,01,000/- and two payments one of

Rs 1,20,000/- and the another of Rs 5,00,000/- were made

to it by the plaintiff. Further payments of Rs 2,20,000/-, Rs

1,50,000/- and 3,00,000/- on 08.07.2001, 21.07.2001 and

07.08.2001 respectively are also alleged to have been made

to her. The prayer made in the suit was for specific

performance of the agreement to sell.

3. Written statement was filed by M/s Loh Vanijya (P)

Ltd. In the written statement, defendant M/s Loh Vanijya

(P) Ltd. took the stand that the suit property had already

been sold by it to Mrs Mallika Kaushik, W/o Mr Rohit

Kaushik vide registered Agreement to Sell dated 25th

August, 2004 and the possession had also been handed

over to her. It was further alleged that Mrs Mallika Kaushik

had thereafter sold/transferred the suit property to Mrs

Gurinder Kaur, W/o Mr Jaswinder Singh and the

possession had also been handed over to him. Mrs Malikka

and Mrs Gurinder were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and

3 vide order of this Court dated April 24, 2006.

4. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff had filed IA No.

248/2005 seeking interim injunction during pendency of

the suit. The injunction sought by the plaintiff was against

alienation, transfer or parting with possession of the suit

property to any third party, during pendency of the suit.

5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that despite the

status quo order passed by this Court, which was extended

in the presence of defendants 2 & 3 on 24 th April, 2006,

defendant No. 3 has raised a building on the suit property

on which only a temporary structure on a part of the plot

existed on the date this suit was filed as also on the date

status quo order passed by this Court. The case of the

plaintiff is that once the status quo order was passed by the

Court, the defendants could not have made any

construction on the suit property and could not have altered

the existing construction in any manner.

6. The application has been opposed by defendant

No.3, who has denied having disobeyed the status quo order

passed by this Court. The plea taken by defendant No.3 is

that the order of the status quo has to be read and

understood in the light of the prayer made in the suit and

the application for grant of ad interim injunction and,

therefore, raising construction does not amount to

disobedience of the order of status quo passed by the Court

on 31st January, 2005 and 24th April, 2006.

7. The application has also been opposed by

defendant No.1, who has claimed that since the possession

of the suit property had been transferred by it prior to filing

of the suit, there could be no question of any disobedience

of the status quo order by it on account of construction

raised on the suit property.

8. In my view, the order of status quo passed by this

Court cannot be read in abstract and divorced from the

prayer made in the suit and the application for grant of

interim injunction. If read out of the context, an order

directing status quo can be interpreted to mean anything

and may result in different interpretations of the same order

by various parties to the suit. In a suit for specific

performance of an agreement for sale of immovable

property, the prayer of the plaintiff is for execution of the

title deed in his favour and delivery of the possession of the

property subject matter of the agreement to him. The

purchaser of the property is not in any manner adversely

affected if any construction is raised on the property subject

matter of the agreement, so long as there is no transfer of

title or possession of the suit property and no third party

interest is created therein.

9. A perusal of the application for grant of interim

injunction would show that the plaintiff itself did not ask for

any injunction against raising of any construction on the

suit property and the prayer made by him was confined to

the title and possession of the property subject matter of the

agreement. Therefore, in my view, the order of status quo

passed by this Court first on 31st January, 2005 and then

on 24th April, 2006 meant only this much that the

defendants were required to maintain status quo with

respect to the title and possession of the property subject

matter of the agreement dated 04 th July, 2001. Though they

could not have created any third party interest therein, this

order did not come in the way of their raising any

construction on the property during pendency of the suit.

10. A similar question came up for consideration

before this Court in S. Anand Deep Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur

and Ors., ILR (1991) I Delhi. In that case, in a suit for

partition, rendition of accounts and declaration, the plaintiff

had obtained an interim order directing status quo to be

maintained in relation to the properties mentioned in the

two Schedules, annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff filed a

Civil Contempt Petition stating therein that one of the

defendants had carried out construction activity in one of

the properties mentioned in one of the Schedules and had

thereby violated the status quo order passed by the Court.

The prayer made by the plaintiff in the application for grant

of interim injunction was confined to restraining the

defendants from alienating or parting with possession of the

disputed property. Dismissing the Contempt Petition, this

Court, inter alia, held as under:

"There is no doubt that in IA 4224/89 status quo orders were passed regarding properties in Schedules I & II on 26th May, 1989.

However, the exact import of the words „status quo' will have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in IA 4224/89. The prayer in this application is that the defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in the entire application that the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 should be restrained from proceeding with the construction in GK property. None of the words used in IA4224/89 can be stretched to mean that the plaintiff ever desired by means of this application a

restraint order against the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 from proceeding with the construction on the Gk property. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Lekhi that under status quo orders, the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 should not have proceeded further with the construction of the GK property does not seem to be tenable."

11. A similar issue arose in Suit No. 1547/1999,

Eastman Collaborator vs. S.K. Mehta: 91(2001) DLT 401

where the parties were directed to maintain status quo in

the light of the report of the Local Commissioner who had

inspected the property to identify the occupation of the

premises. Another Local Commissioner was appointed by

the Court on an application filed by the defendant. The

Local Commissioner found that changes have been made in

the suit premises and gave description of those changes in

his report. Noticing that the dispute between the parties was

with regard to the possession of the suit property and it was

in this context that the Court had passed an order directing

the Local Commissioner to visit the disputed premises and

identify the occupant of those premises, it was held by this

Court that the Court did not intend the suit property to

remain as it was and, therefore, status quo was to be

maintained only with respect to the possession. It was held

that the defendant was not correct in his contention that no

changes could be made in the suit premises.

12. In the case before this Court also, since the

dispute between the parties is only with respect to the

agreement to sell, alleged to have been executed by

defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the only prayer

made in the petition for grant of interim injunction was with

respect to title and possession of the suit property during

pendency of the suit, the order of status quo passed by this

Court, in my view, did not come in the way of any of the

defendants raising any construction on the suit property so

long as they did not create any third party interest therein

and did not part with title or possession of the suit property

in favour of any other person. No disobedience of the order

of this Court is, therefore, made out. The application is

devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

CS(OS) No.37/2005

I am informed that the admission/denial of

documents has not been carried out so far. The parties are

granted one last and final opportunity to carry out

admission/denial of documents on 24th February, 2011.

The matter be listed before the Court for framing of issues

on 04th May, 2011.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2011 bg