Mahesh Singhal vs Bhupinder Narain Bhatnagar
2013 Latest Caselaw 5637 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Judgment Reserved on : 12.11.2013
                                  Judgment Pronounced on : 06.12.2013

+     IA No. 22691/2012 (u/S151 r/w O39 R4 CPC) in CS(OS) 354/2012
      MAHESH SINGHAL                                    ..... Plaintiff
                  Through              Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. Anirudh
                                       Wadhwa, Advocates
                         versus

     BHUPINDER NARAIN BHATNAGAR                     ..... Defendant
                       Through    Mr. Sanjay Katyal,Advocate
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.

IA No. 22691/2012 (u/S151 r/w O 39 R 4 CPC)

1. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011. As per the plaint, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to sell property bearing No. 213, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi- 110092 admeasuring 163 sq. yards for a total consideration of Rs.3.83crores. A sum of Rs. 10 lacs was paid as earnest money at the time of signing of the agreement to sell and purchase. It is averred in the plaint that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3.73 crores was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on or before 15.01.2012.

2. This matter came up for hearing before the Court on 13.02.2012 when the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff made a submission that the plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3.73

crores in the form of Fixed Deposit before this Court. Subject to deposit of the said sum in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt within a period of four weeks, the defendant was restrained from creating any third party interest or to transfer possession of the same in favour of any third person till further orders. The plaintiff has deposited the said FDR of Rs. 3.73 crores.

3. The above interim orders were passed in IA No.27172/2011 which has not yet been disposed of. The plaintiff has in the meantime filed the present application IA No.2269/2012 for modification of the said interim orders passed by this Court on 13.2.2012.

4. It is averred in the present application that the conduct of the plaintiff in voluntarily depositing the balance sale consideration amply demonstrates the bonafides of the plaintiff. It is averred that on account of the fact that the money is deposited in Court, the defendant has since the starting of the litigation been trying to delay the matter. A lot of time has been wasted in filing the written statement on one pretext or the other. It is hence stated that the plaintiff is suffering as the defendant is delaying the proceedings and funds are locked up in the fixed deposit. It is further averred that locking of the funds is causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff and there is an opportunity cost to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is being deprived of the use of the said money. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been forced to borrow money from third parties at commercial rates and it is causing needless financial burden. Hence, it is stated that the interim injunction may be continued but the plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the said deposit. It is stated that in case the present application is not allowed, substantial and

irreparable prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff while on the other hand no prejudice will be caused to the defendant.

5. An undertaking is given in para 15 of this application that the plaintiff undertakes to deposit the money in Court as and when he is called upon to do so, in case the application is allowed.

6. The defendant has opposed the present application. In reply, it is averred that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is stated that in fact, the terms and conditions of the sale were reduced in writing on 05.08.2011 whereby it was stated that the total sale consideration in respect of the suit property would be Rs. 3.83 crores out of which 39 lacs was to be paid as advance by the plaintiff to the defendant by 15.08.2011. The balance sale consideration was to be paid by 05.02.2012. The plaintiff is stated to have paid a token sum of Rs. 1 lac on that date, namely, 05.08.2011. It is averred that all these terms were stated in a written slip/receipt which has been deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff. As far as the agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011 which is relied upon by the plaintiff, it is stated that the same was not signed by the defendant out of his own free will and the same is not enforceable in the eyes of law. It is further stated that the said agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011 does not override the terms and conditions agreed upon on 05.08.2011.

7. Regarding the contention about the plaintiff not approaching this Court with clean hands it is further averred that on 10.09.2012, this matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for the purpose of admission/denial of

documents. The plaintiff produced the original agreement to sell and purchase dated 08.08.2011. It was, at that stage, revealed that the original agreement to sell was different as compared to the photocopy which was placed on record earlier inasmuch as the photocopy placed on record has signatures of only one witness whereas the original produced by the plaintiff at the time of admission/denial of documents had the signatures of two witnesses. In view of the said position, the Joint Registrar on 10.09.2012 directed that the said original Agreement to Sell be taken on record and placed in a sealed cover. The defendant has averred that an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. being Crl. M.A. No. 19259/2012 on account of manipulation of the said document had been filed by the defendant.

8. It is further stated that despite having agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 39 lacs as earnest money by 15.08.2011, time being the essence of contract, the plaintiff has failed to pay the same. It is further averred that the plaintiff was aware that the deal was entered into to facilitate purchase of three flats for the three sons of the defendant in his lifetime. It is stated that defendant is 85 years old who has been manipulated by the plaintiff. Hence, the application is opposed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Mohan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Goyal Tin & General Industries, (2010) 169 DLT 487 (DB) to contend that in cases pertaining to specific performance of contract relating to immovable properties, when passing injunction orders directing the plaintiff

to deposit sale consideration in the Court, would have the effect of placing the parties on an equal footing. Hence, no injunction order could be passed in a Suit for specific performance unless the plaintiff deposits in Court the full balance sale consideration. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement of another Division Bench of this High Court in the case of SABH Infrastructures Ltd vs. Jay Shree Bagley, 2010 (114) DRJ 493 where the judgment in Mohan Overseas P. Ltd. vs. Goyal Tin & General Industries, (supra) was reiterated. Based on these two judgments of the Division Bench of this High Court it is argued that the money deposited by the plaintiff cannot be released without vacating the stay order.

11. Learned counsel has further submitted that one of the principles for granting an injunction to the plaintiff is that he must approach the court with clean hands. He relies on the averment as stated above about suppression of the hand written note dated 05.08.2011 and the interpolation done in the agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011 by the plaintiff to submit that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. He further submits that the plaintiff is guilty of manipulating an old man by making him sign an agreement which he never intended to sign. He further avers that there is no reason to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited in Court inasmuch as the defendant is ready in case this Court appoints a Court Commissioner to record evidence so that the matter is expeditiously disposed of.

12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently submitted that there is no statutory obligation on the plaintiff to deposit the entire sale

consideration in Court. Reliance is placed on Explanation (i) to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act where it is stated that it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court. It is submitted that a huge amount of money of Rs. 3.73 crores is locked up without serving any purpose whatsoever for either of the parties. It is further averred that none of the judgments hold that it is mandatory for the plaintiff to deposit the said amount before being granted any injunction. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:-

(i) Mohan Overseas P. Ltd. vs. Goyal Tin & General Industries, (2010) 169 DLT 487.

(ii) M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajinder Singh and Anr., 1989 (17) DRJ 161

(iii) Gonugunta Gopala Krishna Murthy vs. Uppala Jwala Narasinham and Anr., 2001 (5) ALT 88.

(iv)    Rajesh Kumar vs. Manoj Jain, 1998 (47) DRJ 353.
(v)     Syed Dastagir vs. T.R. Gopalkrishnasetty, JT1999(3) SC 642.
(vi)    N.P. Thirugnanam vs. Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and Ors., (1995) 5
        SCC 115.

13. It is also argued that the defendant is deliberately delaying the proceedings so that the plaintiff suffers. Reliance is placed on the fact that the written statement was placed on record only on 10.09.2012.

14. Section 16(c) and explanation (i) to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows:-

"16. Personal bars to relief.-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-

....

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms and performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (c),-

(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; ..."

15. A perusal of the said statutory provision would show that in view of Section 16 (c) of the said Act, it is necessary to aver and prove by the plaintiff that he has performed and has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. The explanation (i) further clarifies that it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually deposit in Court any money. It would follow from a reading of the said statutory provisions that there is no statutory requirement under the Specific Relief Act to claim Specific Performance for the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration when filing a suit pertaining to specific performance of an agreement pertaining to an immovable property.

16. The Division Bench of this High Court in the Case of Mohan Overseas P. Ltd. vs. Goyal Tin & General Industries (supra) in para 20 held as follows:-

"20. In this analysis, it seems to us that there are myriad alternatives which the Court can adopt in suits for specific performance. If it is satisfied that it would be unconscionable or

unfair for the Defendant to transfer or create any third party interest in the immovable property which is the subject-matter of a concluded contract the Court can pass an injunction. Keeping in mind that specific performance orders are essential equitable reliefs, the Court will not allow the pendency of a suit to work inequities against the owners of the property. The mere rejection of a temporary injunction does not remove this imbalance since the very pendency of the suit has the effect of jeopardizing the title of the Defendant/Owner. Broadly speaking, we are of the opinion that in most cases, directing the Plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration in the Court, would have the effect of placing the parties on equal footing. Obviously, this is the rationale behind the First Explanation to Section 16(c) of the SR Act which preserves the power of the Court to make such direction. ...."

17. It would be necessary to also have a look on the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajinder Singh and Anr.(supra). In para 7 of this judgment, this court held as follows:-

"7. ... Normally, therefore, no money is to be tendered and it is only in cases where the Court feels that, though an averment may have been made in the plaint as postulated by explanation to Section 16, the plaintiff may not actually have the money to pay the consideration, therefore, in order to bind the plaintiff or to satisfy itself above the truthfulness of the averment, the Court may direct the plaintiff to deposit the money in Court. This course, in our view, should be adopted rarely, and only when the Court is of the opinion that the averment of the plaintiff being ready and willing to perform the contract may not be quite true."

18. In view of Section 16(c) of the Act, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Thirugnanam vs. Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and Ors. (supra) in

para 5 held as follows:-

"5. ... The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit alongwith other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the contract of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

19. The Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Manoj Jain (surpa) held as follows:-

"35. The question is whether it is necessary for the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance either to deposit in Court or prove at this stage that he has got ready cash with him to show his readiness and willingness to do his part of the agreement to sell. Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff seeking specific performance is to plead and prove during trial that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to perform essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him continuously between the date of the contract and the date of the hearing of the suit (Gomathinayagam Pillai and Ors. v.Pallaniswami Nadar MANU/SC/0067/1996: [1967] 1 SCR 227 and Ardashir M. Mama v. Flora Sasson MANU/PR/0024/1928 : AIR 1928 PC 208.

36. In order to prove himself to be ready and willing to perform his obligation under a contract to purchase, the purchaser has not necessarily to produce the money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. (Bank of India Ltd. v. Jameshjeet A.H. Chinoy and Ors. AIR 1950 PC 90).

37. In Sukhbir Singh and Ors. v. Brijpal Singh MANU/SC/0629/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2510 also it has been held that law is not in doubt that it is not a condition that respondent should have ready cash with him.

38. In any case, by depositing the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff has prima facie shown his financial position, capacity to finance the purchase and his readiness and willingness. Since the defendant is not ready and willing as at present to complete the sale, the plaintiff should not be burdened with the condition that he should part with the balance sale price at this stage."

In that case also a Suit was filed for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell. This Court while passing an ex parte interim order restraining the defendant therein from creating, selling, alienating or creating third party interest directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.36,89,000/- in the form of FDR. The plaintiff complied with the said directions. The plaintiff later filed an application claiming for release of the said FDRs which was opposed by the defendant. This Court in view of the above observations held that the Suit is likely to take time to reach finality and that in the meantime plaintiff cannot be deprived of use of his money as well as enjoyment of the property. This Court noted as follows in paragraph 40:-

"40. The suit is likely to take time to reach its finality, In the meantime, he cannot be deprived the use of his money as well as the enjoyment of the property. Equity helps honest plaintiff against defendant who breaches solemnly given undertaking."

The application of the plaintiff for release of FDRs was allowed.

Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Bank of India, Ltd. vs. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Chinoy and Company, AIR 1950 PC 90 wherein in para 15 the Privy Council held as follows:-

"15. ... But to prove himself ready and willing a purchaser has not necessarily to produce the money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. The question is one of fact, and in the present case the Appellate Court had ample material on which to found the view it reached. Their Lordships would only add in this connexion that they fully concur with Chagla A.C.J. when he says: "in my opinion, on the evidence already on record it was sufficient for the court to come to the conclusion‟ that the first plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was necessary for him to „work out actual figures and satisfy the court what specific‟ amount a bank would have advanced on the mortgage; of his property and the pledge of these shares."

20. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbir Singh and others versus Brij Pal Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 2510 where in paragraph 5 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"5. Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondents should have ready cash with them. The fact that they attended the Sub-Registrar‟s office to have the sale deed executed and waited for the petitioners to attend the office of the Sub-Registrar is a positive fact to prove that they had necessary funds to pass on consideration and had with them the needed money with them for payment at the time of registration. It is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should

always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till date of the decree. It would, therefore, be clear that the courts below have appropriately exercised their discretion for granting the relief of specific performance of the respondents on sound principles of law."

21. The proposition that follows from the above case law is that it is not in every case that before grant of injunction in a suit for specific performance of immovable property a direction has to be passed to the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Court is of the view that on the facts equities demand, plaintiff would be directed to deposit the balance sale consideration as provided in explanation (i) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act before granting interim orders to the plaintiff.

22. Lot of stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the defendant on the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mohan Overseas P. Ltd. vs. Goyal Tin & General Industries, (supra). As already noted above, this Court did not hold in the said case that whenever an injunction is granted in a suit for specific performance for agreement to sell immovable property the plaintiff must deposit the balance sale consideration in Court. That was a case in which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the injunction application and had held that there was no concluded contract between the parties. It was in those circumstances that the appellant had himself held out in the appeal that he was ready and willing to deposit the entire sale consideration. This offer was made by the appellant to show his bona fide. It was in those circumstances that the Court directed the appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration in Court. It was laid down that directing the

plaintiff to deposit sale consideration in the Court, would have the effect of placing the parties on equal footing. There was no proposition laid down, as argued by the learned counsel for the defendant, that no interim order can be passed against the defendant in a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property unless the entire balance sale consideration is deposited in Court.

23. As far as the case of SABH Infrastructures Ltd vs. Jay Shree Bagley (supra) is concerned, that was a case where the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 21 lacs when he entered into the agreement whereas the learned Single Judge had directed him to deposit a balance consideration of Rs. 1.74 crores. The court noted that the plaintiff has invested only a sum of Rs.21 lacs in a property transaction the total value of which was Rs.7.40 crore. The matter pertained to a Collaboration Agreement. It was in those circumstances that the Division Bench took the view that there were no grounds to interfere in the order passed by the learned single judge exercising discretion and directing the plaintiff to deposit the said sum of Rs. 1.74 crores. In that case, the defendant had strongly urged that the suit is not maintainable inasmuch as a Collaboration Agreement or MOU is not enforceable. It was on those facts that the learned single judge had passed an order for injunction based on deposit of the amount of Rs.1.74 crores. The court had in the said judgement noted as follows:-

"6. ... The obverse has not been considered, namely, whether it is equitable that on payment of a meagre sum which represents less than five per cent of the consideration a plaintiff would be entitled to freeze transactions on a property for a substantial period of

time. Where property prices are volatile and ascendant, it would always be the interest and endeavour of a speculator to file a suit for specific performance by creating the illusion of disputes. ..."

24. The other argument of learned counsel for the defendant, namely, that the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands would also not have a bearing for the purposes of determination of the present application.

Defendant has prima facie not been able to show any serious prejudice due to the stated acts which allegedly constitute acts of the plaintiff in not approaching the Court with clean hands. It is a question of interpretation of documents as to whether the subsequent agreement dated 8.8.2011 between the parties superseded the terms and conditions of the earlier Agreement dated 5.8.2011. The total agreed sale consideration in the two agreements is the same. There is only some variation in the advance payment. There is also some variation in the date of payment of the final consideration. The receipt dated 05.08.2011 states that the balance sale consideration was to be paid by 05.02.2012 whereas the agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011 states that the balance sale consideration was to be paid earlier, namely, by 15.01.2012. As to whether the agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011 supersedes and/or rescind or alter or extinguish the previous contract as set to be envisaged in receipt dated 05.08.2011 is a question of fact which will have to be determined after the evidence is led by the parties.

25. Regarding the additions, having been made to the original agreement to sell dated 8.8.2011 the only addition that has been purportedly done by the plaintiff is that the copy of the agreement to sell that had been originally

filed had signature of one witness whereas the original Agreement to Sell produced by the plaintiff had signatures of two witnesses. There are no changes in the terms and conditions of the Agreement in the copy originally filed and the original produced later. The alleged interpolation has prima facie at this stage caused no prejudice to the defendant.

26. In the present case, the plaintiff had on his own offered to deposit the full balance sale consideration of Rs. 3.73 crores on 13.02.2013 when IA No. 27172/2012 came up for hearing. Based on the said statement, the Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from creating third party interest and from transferring possession of the property in favour of third person. The plaintiff has deposited the amount. The said amount of Rs. 3.73 crores has been lying deposited in Court since March, 2012.

27. There is merit in the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff that there has been needless delay on the part of the defendant in pursuit of the present case. Summons were issued on 13.2.2012 by this Court, returnable for 27.3.2012. On 27.3.2012 learned counsel for the defendant entered appearance. On 13.8.2012 learned counsel for the defendant had stated that he had recently been engaged and he sought an adjournment to assist the Court. He stated that the written statement had already been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The Court noted that the written statement and the application are not on record. On 3.9.2012 the Joint Registrar noted that the written statement is not on record. On 10.9.2012 the Joint Registrar finally noted that the written statement is on

record. Thereafter the defendant filed IA No.21423/2012 on 27.11.2012 for amendment of the written statement. The amendments seek to add averments that the Agreement to Sell and purchase dated 8.8.2011 is manipulated, tampered and void on various grounds. The said application is still pending disposal. Hence, even the issues are yet to be framed. It is apparent that the disposal of the Suit is likely to take some time. A large amount is lying blocked for which there is a heavy cost being borne by the plaintiff.

28. One may look at the conduct of the parties prior to the filing of the suit. Agreement to sell, as per the plaintiff, has been executed on 08.08.2011 and the last date for making payment of balance sale consideration was 15.01.2012. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant much prior to the date of making payment, namely, 21.11.2011 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3.73 crores and execute necessary title documents in favour of the plaintiff within 7 days of the receipt of this notice. Hence, in fact the plaintiff was seeking to pre-pone the date of completion of the transaction. Counsel for the defendant sent a reply to the said legal notice on 17.01.2012 i.e. after the date fixed for payment of balance sale consideration stating that the defendant has been constantly requesting the plaintiff and the broker for a copy of the agreement to sell but to no avail. It is further stated that the defendant is an old man and has now discovered that he cannot on his own perform his part of the agreement. The present suit is thereafter filed expeditiously, namely, on 08.02.2012. In the written statement, the defendant has taken the plea that the defendant being an old man has been manipulated by the plaintiff and made to sign the

agreement to sell dated 08.08.2011. Hence, it is stated that the agreement to sell was not entered into by the defendant with his free will and has been got signed under misrepresentation. Receipt of advance of Rs. 10 lacs is not denied.

Hence, in view of the above facts, the prima facie conclusion is that the plaintiff has acted bona fide. It is a matter of fact that there are minor differences in the two agreements. If the plaintiff had to really take advantage of manipulation, deceit and force, then there would have been material differences in the terms and conditions of the two documents.

29. It is, however, no doubt true that the continuation of the injunction order does cause some prejudice to the defendant inasmuch as a valuable property worth Rs. 3.83 crores is sought to be entangled/ is sought to be stayed by filing the present suit by the plaintiff who has paid mere Rs. 10 lacs to the defendant which is even less than 10% of the sale price .

30. However, in my view, in view of the facts of this case, no purpose would be served to have the balance sale consideration deposited in Court. To protect the interest of the defendant, the present application is allowed subject to the condition that once the pleadings of the parties are complete and issues are framed, the evidence of the parties shall be recorded by a retired ADJ who will be appointed as a Court Commissioner. The entire costs of recording of evidence by the Court Commissioner shall be borne exclusively by the plaintiff and endeavour shall be made to complete the evidence within a period of six months. The plaintiff will not be entitled to seek adjournment other than on account of some serious impediment which

would be at the discretion of the Court Commissioner. The plaintiff shall also remain bound by its undertaking to re-deposit the said amount of Rs. 3.73 crores if later directed by the Court. An affidavit to the said effect shall be filed by the plaintiff to the said effect within two weeks.

31. Hence, subject to above, the present application is allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to take back fixed deposit of Rs. 3.73 crores along with accumulated interest. The interim order dated 03.02.2012 to that extent is modified. The application is disposed of.

32. It is, however, clarified that all observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the present application. Nothing contained herein shall in any way affect the rights and contentions of the parties at the time of final adjudication of the suit.

CS(OS)354/2012 List before the Joint Registrar on 03.02.2014 for further proceedings.

JAYANT NATH, J.

DECEMBER 06, 2013 rb/n