M/S. Puran Chand Packaging ... vs Smt.Sona Devi & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1580 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                CM No.21621/2010 in RFA(OS) No.41/2000

%                         Date of Decision: 18.03.2011

M/s. Puran Chand Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd.            .... Appellant

                         Through Mr.K.A.Singh, Advocate.

                                     Versus

Smt.Sona Devi & Anr.                                     .... Respondents

                         Through Mr.R.K.Jain, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.SHALI

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may              NO
        be allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?             NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be                     NO
        reported in the Digest?


V.K.SHALI, J. (ORAL)

*

1. This is an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for refund of Rs.7 lakhs

deposited by him in the present appeal, by virtue of a court order,

which was not finally followed by the parties.

2. Brief facts, to comprehend the controversy in issue, are that the

respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for possession against the

appellant/defendant before this Court. In the said suit, an application

under Order 12 Rule 6 was filed on the basis of which a Decree dated

4th July, 2000 for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour

of the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The appellant/defendant feeling aggrieved by the said Decree of

possession dated 4th July, 2000 filed the present RFA(OS) No.41/2000.

During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was arrived at

between the parties and order dated 4th December, 2001 records the

broad terms and conditions of the same as under:-

"1. Appellant shall handover possession of Plot No.20, SMA, Industrial Area to respondents within four months from today and Respondents shall pay Rs.13 lacs to him in full and final settlement of all his claims including those set up in Suit No.2873/90 and 513/96

2. Respondents shall deposit Rs.13 lacs before the Registrar of this Court in two equal instalments within three months from today.

3. Both sides shall withdraw their suits within one month from date of deposit of Rs.13 lacs by respondents. They shall also resolve other ancillary disputes related to payment of electricity charges by Appellant and TDS certificates etc.

4. Two weeks time is granted to both parties to file a joint application incorporating the terms of compromise supported by their respective undertakings."

4. It transpires that the order dated 4th December, 2001 was

modified on 22nd February, 2002 whereupon an amount of Rs.13 lacs

was reduced to Rs.12 lacs and further the same was to be deposited in

two installments of Rs.6 lacs each, first of which was to be deposited

within two months.

5. In pursuance to the said orders dated 4th December, 2001 & 22nd

February, 2002, the respondent/plaintiff is purported to have deposited

a sum of Rs.7 lakhs. Further in terms of the compromise, the amount of

Rs.12 lakhs was to be given to the appellant/defendant who was to

hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the

respondent/plaintiff. A joint application in this regard was to be filed.

None of these actions were carried out and consequently the appeal was

heard and decided on merits.

6. This appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 26th May,

2008 whereby the Decree for possession passed in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 was set aside and the

matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge to be heard afresh in

accordance with the law. However, while disposing of the appeal, no

order with regard to the return of the amount of Rs.7 lakhs, which was

deposited by the respondent/plaintiff was passed as none of the parties

seemed to have pointed out that any amount stands deposited with the

Registrar General.

7. Now, the respondent/plaintiff has filed an application under

Section 151 CPC for refund of that amount on the ground since the

order dated 4th December, 2001 setting out, the terms and conditions of

compromise arrived at between the parties, could not be given effect to

and the matter was decided on merit, the aforesaid amount be directed

to be released to the respondent/plaintiff.

8. The appellant/defendant has filed his reply to the application and

contested the claim of the respondent/plaintiff for refund of the

amount. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant that the aforesaid amount need not be refunded to

the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that he had acted upon the

agreement set out in the order dated 4th December, 2001 inasmuch as

he had dismantled his machinery from the plot of land in question, for

the purpose of handing over the possession of the same to the

respondent/plaintiff. It has been stated that the possession actually

could not be handed over to the respondent/plaintiff on account of the

fact that the amount of money which was to be given by the

respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant, had not been given,

therefore, the amount may not be refunded. Further the installation of

the machinery would result in the expenditure of an amount of Rs.3

lakhs or so and only then can the appellant/defendant restart the

business and therefore, this amount be released to them. Secondly, it

has been stated that there is a house tax liability of nearly Rs.26 lakhs

or so qua the property for which demand has been raised by the MCD

and this should also be taken into consideration for non refund of the

amount.

9. We have considered the submissions made by the respective

sides. It is not in dispute that by order dated 4th December, 2001 as

modified by order dated 22nd February, 2002, certain terms and

conditions were set out for the purpose of disposal of the amount,

which was never acted upon by the defendant/plaintiff, as a

consequence which the matter was heard and decided on merits. As a

consequence of having decided the appeal on merits, the parties must

necessarily restore the status quo ante between themselves. There is

no dispute about the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has deposited a

sum of Rs.7 lakhs in pursuance to the orders dated 4th December, 2001

and 22.2.2002, though he was required to deposit Rs.12 lakhs, which

must be refunded to the respondent/plaintiff along with interest. So far

as the plea of appellant/defendant that he would be incurring an

expense of Rs.3 lakhs for the purpose of re-installation of the machinery

on the plot of land in question or that certain house taxes are due and

liable to be payable under his occupation, and consequently, the

amount may not be released to the respondent/plaintiff is concerned,

that is of no consequence and could not be set up as a ground for not

releasing the amount to the respondent/plaintiff. The

appellant/defendant is at liberty to raise all such claims to which he

may be entitled on account of non observance of the compromise

arrived at between the parties as may be permissible in law. However,

no order depriving the respondent/plaintiff, getting the refund of the

amount deposited by him, can be passed.

10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the amount of Rs.7lakhs

along with interest accrued is directed to be released to the

respondent/plaintiff by the Registry within a period of four weeks.

11. With these directions, the application stands disposed of.

V.K.SHALI, J.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MARCH 18, 2011 vk