Sh.Anil Kumar Dabas vs Sh.Khazan & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5347 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         C.M.(M) No.239/2011 & C.M.No.4409/2011 (Stay)

%                                                             29th October, 2014

SH.ANIL KUMAR DABAS                                                ..... Petitioner
                 Through                     None

                            versus

SH.KHAZAN & ORS                                                 ..... Respondents

                            Through          Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R-
                                             4/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the orders passed by the trial court on 11.1.2011 and 29.1.2011 by which

only an injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff

restraining the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 from creating any third party

interest in the suit property being plot no.88, Pocket No.10, Block No.B,

Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi admeasuring 80 sq. yds. and

petitioner/plaintiff was not successful in getting a direction for the DDA to

deposit the original title deeds of the suit property in the Court. The subject

suit is a suit for specific performance.

2. On behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, it was argued that since the

petitioner/plaintiff has deposited the entire sale consideration with the

DDA/respondent no.4/defendant no.4, if the title documents are executed in

favour of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 by the defendant no.4/DDA,

and these title documents are handed over to the defendant no.1/respondent

no.1 by the defendant no.4/DDA, grave prejudice will be caused to the

petitioner/plaintiff in the suit for specific performance because there is a

chance of misuse of the title documents by the defendant no.1/respondent

no.1 who is acting illegally and unfairly in refusing to execute the sale deed

of the suit property in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. I may note that impugned orders were passed at the stage when the

suit was at the stage of service of the defendants i.e injunction application

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was still pending.

4. In this petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court on 04.2.2013 had

directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the execution of

the documents, and which interim order is still continuing.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case where the

petitioner/plaintiff claims to have deposited the entire sale consideration

with the respondent no.4/defendant no.4/DDA, and the petitioner/plaintiff

has with him the original allotment letter of the suit property as pleaded in

the plaint, the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court

on 04.2.2013 is confirmed, and the same will operate till the disposal of the

injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit for specific

performance.

6. Of course, I hasten to clarify that I have not observed in one way or

the other on the merits of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

and the same will be disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law.

7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 29, 2014 KA