Swaranjeet Kaur Sachdeva vs Satish Chaudhary
2014 Latest Caselaw 3622 Del

$~14.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CS(OS) 1820/2011
%                                           Judgment dated 08.08.2014


         SWARANJEET KAUR SACHDEVA               ..... Plaintiff
                     Through : Mr.D.D. Singh and Mr.Navdeep Singh,
                               Advs.

                             versus

         SATISH CHAUDHARY                     ..... Defendant
                      Through
         CORAM:
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

    1.

Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.64,00,000/-.

2. Summons were issued initially in the prescribed form under the provisions of Order XXXVII. Thereafter as steps were not taken the suit was converted into an ordinary suit.

3. Since the defendant could not be served in the ordinary way, the plaintiff filed I.A.19300/2012 for service of summons on the defendant through publication. Notice was published in two newspapers 'Rashtriya Sahara' and 'The Statesman'. Despite service defendant has chosen not to enter appearance and contest this matter. Memo of appearance has also not been filed. Defendant was proceeded ex parte on 30.4.2014. Plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of evidence (Exhibit PW-1/A).

4. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the present suit are that the defendant had represented to the husband of the plaintiff that the

property bearing No.B-3, Sector 81, NOIDA Phase-II, was purchased by him in a public auction carried out by Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of U.P. at Allahabad. It was represented to the plaintiff that the defendant had submitted the highest bid and had deposited the entire amount as per the bid. Believing the averments made by the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said plot in their joint names, and they entered into an Agreement to Sell with defendant with respect to the property baring No.B-3, Sector 81, NOIDA Phase 2, U.P., measuring 3000 sq. meters for a total consideration of Rs.2,02,50,000/-. On 28.12.2006 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- to the defendant in the following manner:

(i) Rs.4,50,000 /- was paid by means of draft no.002087 dated 14.12.2006 drawn on HDFC Bank, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.

(ii) Rs.50,000/-, was paid in cash.

(iii) Rs.9,00,000/- was paid by means of Daft bearing no.058884 dated 26.12.2006 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.

(iv) Rs.6,50,000/- was paid by means of Draft bearing no.058885 dated 26.12.2006 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.

5. The balance amount was payable on or before 15.04.2007. Original Agreement to Sell has been exhibited as PW-1/1 and money receipt has been exhibited as PW-1/2.

6. The husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also paid a further sum of Rs.43,00,000/- to the defendant towards completion of transaction. As the defendant was unable to obtain necessary permission a Deed of

Revocation was executed between the deceased husband of the plaintiff, plaintiff and son of the plaintiff and defendant at Delhi, whereby it was agreed to cancel the Agreement to Sell dated 28.12.2006. The Deed of Revocation has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/3. At the time of signing of the Revocation Agreement defendant handed over two cheques, one cheque amounting to Rs.44.00 lakhs, bearing no.918246 dated 21.5.2008 in the name of deceased husband of plaintiff and the second cheque amounting to Rs.20.00 lakhs, bearing no.918248 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur, dated 21.07.2008, in favour of the plaintiff. The aforesaid cheques when presented were dishonoured. Copy of the cheque has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/4. Bank memo has been exhibited as PW-1/5.

7. As the payments were not received plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.64.00 lakhs. Legal notice and despatch particulars have been exhibited as PW-1/6 and 7 (Colly.).

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that despite legal notice having been issued, defendant has failed to make the payment.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and also examined the evidence of the plaintiff, which has gone unrebutted. Plaintiff has established that an Agreement to Sell was executed between the plaintiff and defendant (Exhibit PW-1/1). The plaintiff has made payments to the defendant. A receipt was executed, which is exhibit PW-1/2. The Deed of Revocation has been exhibited as PW-1/3, which shows that the parties had decided to revoke the Agreement to Sell and in consideration thereof defendant handed over cheques in favour of the plaintiff (PW-1/4), which were dishonoured on presentation. The cheques have been placed on record. Legal notice issued has yielded no result. Consequently, present

suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 10%, per annum, with costs. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

G.S.SISTANI, J AUGUST 08, 2014 msr