Anil Kumar Yadav vs Satish Kumar & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 3203 Del

$~39.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1059/2015 and I.A. 8014-8015/2015
      ANIL KUMAR YADAV                          ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Mr. Siddharth Pandit, Advocate with
                    Mr. J.K. Sharma, Advocate

                          versus

      SATISH KUMAR & ORS                                ..... Defendants
                    Through: None

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 21.04.2015

1. The plaintiff has instituted the present summary suit under

Order XXXVII CPC, praying inter alia for recovery of `24,29,850/-

against the defendants.

2. The suit is based on two cheques dated 08.09.2014, for a sum of

`7,50,000/- each issued by the defendant No.1 in favour of the

plaintiff and a sum of `15,00,000/- that the plaintiff claims to have

paid to the defendants towards earnest money in respect of an

Agreement to Sell dated 25.02.2015 relating to flat No.JH-1/78-A, CIG

Flat, 1st Floor, Vikaspuri, Delhi, executed by the parties.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff has been requested to address the Court

on the maintainability of the present suit under Order XXXVII CPC.

4. After addressing arguments for some time, learned counsel for

the plaintiff requests that a relief in the suit be confined to recovery of

`15 lacs, with interest being the value of the two cheques issued by

the defendant No.1 and the plaint be returned to him to enable him to

present it before the competent court vested with pecuniary

jurisdiction to entertain the same. He also reserves the right of his

client to initiate appropriate legal steps against the defendants in

respect of the Agreement to Sell dated 25.02.2015.

3. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The relief in the suit is limited

to recovery of `15,00,000/- with interest. The Registry is directed to

return the plaint to the plaintiff through counsel to enable him to

present the same before the competent court vested with the

pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it. Liberty is also granted to the

plaintiff to institute independent legal proceedings against the

defendants for the alleged non-performance of their obligations under

the aforesaid Agreement to Sell in respect of the immovable property

referred to hereinabove.

4. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 21, 2015 rkb