Delhi High Court
Deepak Rajdogra & Ors vs Preet Singh Balhara & Ors on 17 September, 2015
$~13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 493/2014
DEEPAK RAJDOGRA & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Ripin Sood, Advocate
versus
PREET SINGH BALHARA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 17.09.2015
REVIEW PET. 147/2014
1. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs praying inter alia
for review of the order dated 19.02.2014.
2. It is pertinent to note that on 02.05.2014, when the present
application was listed before the predecessor Bench, namely, Rajiv
Sahai Endlaw, J., it was observed that though the present application
is couched as a review application, the plaintiffs are actually seeking
recall of part of the order dated 19.02.2014, wherein the statement of
the counsel for the plaintiffs was recorded, giving up the claim for
specific performance. With these directions, the present application
was directed to be placed before the Roster Bench.
3. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that after passing of the order
dated 19.02.2014, the plaintiff No.1 had called upon his wife, plaintiff
No.2 to look for some documents and thereafter discovered some
hand written receipts allegedly executed by the defendants
acknowledging receipt of amounts to the tune of Rs.19 lacs. Learned
counsel states that the said amounts were paid by the plaintiffs to the
defendants for sale of the first floor of the suit premises and therefore,
the order dated 19.02.2014, whereunder the statement of the counsel
to the effect that the plaintiffs do not claim any other right in the suit
property except as tenants and they seek recovery of the amounts
allegedly paid to the defendants, without claiming enforcement of the
Agreement to Sell, ought to be modified.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that at the time of
instituting the suit, he had filed I.A. 3280/2014 under Order IX Rule
12 CPC for calling upon the defendants to produce some original
documents, I.A.3281/2014 under Order VII R 14 CPC for reserving the
right of the plaintiffs to claim larger relief and further I.A. 3282/2014
under Order II Rule 2 CPC for reserving the right of the plaintiffs to
alter the reliefs sought or file a separate suit.
5. Pertinently, all the aforesaid applications were dismissed after
the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiffs was recorded on
19.02.2014. The present application is nothing but an attempt on the
part of the plaintiffs to wriggle out of the instructions given to the
counsel as recorded on 19.02.2014. It is pertinent to note that
specific queries were raised by the predecessor Bench on the counsel
for the plaintiffs with regard to the claim in the suit, which has been
filed as a simpliciter suit for permanent and mandatory injunction
against the defendants No.1 to 3 seeking to restrain them from
dispossessing him from the ground floor and first floor of the suit
premises. In response, counsel for the plaintiffs had stated that the
plaintiffs claim agreement to sell only in respect of the first floor and
they were occupying the ground floor as tenants. Thereafter, counsel
for the plaintiffs had stated on instructions from the plaintiff No.1
(husband of plaintiff No.2), who was present in Court, that the
plaintiffs be permitted to give up their relief of agreement to sell and
confine the relief in the suit only to injunction against forcible
dispossession from the property as tenants.
6. In this background, the Court declines to entertain the present
application. The same is patently misconceived and is accordingly
dismissed.
CS(OS) 493/2014 and I.A. 13435/2014, 3279/2014
1. Counsels for the parties state that the defendants had instituted
a suit for eviction against the plaintiffs in the trial court, on which a
judgment and decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was passed against
the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises on 16.07.2015.
2. Aggrieved by the said decision dated 16.07.2015 passed by the
ADJ, the plaintiffs had preferred an appeal in the High Court,
registered as RFA 556/2015. Vide order dated 18.08.2015, the appeal
was disposed of on agreed terms and conditions, one of the conditions
being that the plaintiffs herein (appellants in the appeal) shall hand
over vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to the defendants
on or before 31.12.2016. A copy of the aforesaid order is handed over
by the counsels for the parties and is taken on record.
3. In view of the aforesaid order, nothing further survives for
adjudication in the present suit, which is accordingly disposed of
alongwith the pending applications.
4. Needless to state that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to seek their
remedies against the defendants for recovery of monies allegedly paid
to them before the competent court in accordance with law.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
rkb
