Delhi High Court
G S Anand & Anr. vs Purna Chandra Rout on 9 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 212/2015
G S ANAND & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr Gurmehar S. Sistani, Adv.
versus
PURNA CHANDRA ROUT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Francis Paul, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 09.07.2015
CM No. 6123/2015 (early hearing)
1. This is an application seeking early hearing. Learned counsel for the
applicant/ appellant says that he does not wish to press the captioned
application.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM No. 6124/2015 (Stay)
3. By order dated 27.03.2015, my predecessor had stayed the execution
of the impugned judgement and decree till the next date of hearing. On the
returnable date, i.e. 08.05.2015, since there was no appearance on behalf of
the respondent, the matter was posted for hearing today i.e. 09.07.2015. The
interim order, though passed on 27.03.2015, was continued.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length. By
virtue of the impugned judgement and decree the trial court broadly has
come to the conclusion that the defence set up by the appellants herein that
the cheque, which was issued in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs, in favour of the
proprietor concern i.e. the respondent herein, for purposes of supplying fire
fighting equipment, was not tenable. On the other hand, the trial court,
based on evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants herein had
been engaged for executing sanitation and drainage work and, accordingly,
the said cheque was paid towards the work executed by them.
5. Mr Gurmehar Sistani, learned counsel for the appellant, however, says
that the respondent herein has filed a second suit. Though the counsels for
the parties are not able to give the number of that suit, it is agreed between
them that the second suit was filed after the subject suit was instituted i.e.
the suit from which the captioned appeal has arisen. The second suit was
filed, I am told, in 2012, whereas the instant suit was instituted in 2010.
6. To continue with the narrative, it is the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that in the subsequent i.e. the second suit, apart
from the appellant herein, two other entities have been impleaded as parties
i.e. an entity by the name of Ace Alerts and M/s Celebration Gardens. It is
the learned counsel's submission that the debt, if any, vis-a-vis the sanitation
and drainage work, even as per the averments made in the second suit, arose
on account of the work accorded to the respondent herein by M/s
Celebration Gardens, which is arrayed as defendant no.4, in the second suit.
7. Mr Sistani submits that neither Ace Alerts nor M/s Celebration
Garden was impleaded as a party in the subject suit.
7.1 It is, therefore, his submission that the subject suit ought to have been
dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties; which is an
issue, which the trial court, erroneously, found against the appellant.
8. I have perused the plaint in the second suit. Broadly, the case of the
respondent appears to be that M/s Celebration Garden was the principal
employer. Though the pleadings lack sharpness, the suggestion of the
plaintiff appears to be that the appellants herein had obtained the sanitation
and drainage work from M/s. Garden Celebration (i.e. the principal) which
in turn had been passed on for execution to the respondent herein.
8.1 I must also note that in the second suit the respondent has disclosed
the factum of the cheque of Rs. 4 lacs having been issued in his favour,
which is subject matter of the impugned judgement. Counsels for the
parties inform me that the second suit is still at the initial stage. As to
whether the second suit will result in a decree is something that is still
undecided.
9. However, in so far as the subject suit is concerned, I am of the view
that this is a case which requires a conditional stay to be granted in favour of
the appellant and, therefore, the appellants are directed to deposit the entire
decretal amount in this court.
9.1 Accordingly, upon an assurance that the decretal amount will be
deposited by the appellants with the registry of this court within six weeks
from today, the execution proceedings will continue to remain stayed.
10. On the amount being deposited by the appellants, the same will be
invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit by the registry till further orders
of this court.
11. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
RFA 212/2015
12. Admit.
13. List in the usual course, as per its age and seniority.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 09, 2015
kk
