Gs Bhatia & Anr vs Taran Jeet Kaur
2012 Latest Caselaw 2722 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment:25.04.2012

+     CM(M) 489/2012 & CM Nos.7442-43/2012


      GS BHATIA & ANR                       ..... Petitioner
                    Through             Mr.Mukesh M. Goel, Adv.

                      versus


      TARAN JEET KAUR                        ..... Respondent
                   Through              None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned judgment is dated 15.02.2012; the application filed

by the defendant seeking a prayer to the effect that he should be

permitted to pay the amounts with interest to the plaintiff which

amounts have been paid by the plaintiff had been declined and rightly

so.

2 Record shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific

performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.09.2005. In the course of

the proceedings and undisputedly a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- had been paid

by the plaintiff; total sale consideration of the disputed property (which

was the subject matter of the agreement to sell) was Rs.16,40,000/-. The

suit had initially been instituted in the High Court and in answer to a

preliminary issue, the Court had directed the competent Court which

was the court of the Additional District Judge to deal with the suit as the

High Court did not have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction preliminary.

The following order was passed by the High Court on 16.01.2009:-

"If the plaintiff files the returned plaint in the Court of the appropriate jurisdiction. It is directed that the file of this suit be also on requisitioned being received from that Court be sent that Court, since proceedings till the framing of issues have already been undertaken. The sale deed aforesaid lying deposited on this file shall then be released to whosoever is found entitled thereto by such Court. The plaintiff shall then also have the benefit of the monies paid to the bank in pursuance to the orders made herein."

3 The High Court while disposing of the preliminary issue had

noted that the sale deed shall be released to the party who so ever is

found entitled to by the Court. Averments made in the application under

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Code') are largely to the effect that the payment of money by the

plaintiff is creating an equity in favour of the plaintiff which he is not

entitled as she has not paid the amounts according to the schedule

contained in the agreement to sell. In this scenario, the present

application filed by the defendant is one more last ditch effort to retrace

the same scenario which already stands decided by the order of the High

Court on 16.01.2009. At the cost of repetition, this was the subject

matter of consideration before the High Court which in its order dated

16.01.2009 has noted as reproduced hereinabove.

4 In this background, the application filed by the defendant was

clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and was rightly dismissed

with costs. This petition is also nothing else but an effort to prolong the

litigation which has already not been allowed to progress.

5 Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court; it is dismissed

with costs of Rs.10,000/-

INDERMEET KAUR, J APRIL 25, 2012 A