Manjit Dayal & Anr. vs Gautam Verma
2017 Latest Caselaw 2405 Del

$~19.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   FAO(OS) No. 113/2016
                                           Date of decision: 15th May, 2017
        MANJIT DAYAL & ANR.                       ..... Appellants
                     Through Mr. Siddhant Asthana & Mr. Peeyush
                     Ranjan, Advocates.

                          versus

        GAUTAM VERMA                             ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. Nikhlesh R., Mr. Dinesh Kumar &
                   Ms. Archana Gupta, Advocates.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        This intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd February, 2016

whereby application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by Gautam Verma, the plaintiff, who is the

respondent before us, has been allowed and the application filed by the

appellants, who are the defendants in the suit, for vacation of ex parte

interim stay, has been dismissed.

2.      The respondent has filed the suit for specific performance of

agreement to sell dated 5th October, 2013 in respect of property No. 430,

Forest Lane, Neb Sarai, Sainik Farm, New Delhi.            The total sale

consideration mentioned in the agreement is Rs.6.75 crores, out of which,

sum of Rs.1.03 crores was paid by the respondent to the appellant at the
 time of execution of the agreement.          To this extent, the position is

undisputed.

3.      The dispute pertains to interpretation of clause 5 of the agreement

under which the respondent was to pay Rs.1 crore on or before 5 th January,

2014.       As per the respondent, the said clause stipulates that payment

would be made on execution of revocation deed by Bridget Dayal on or

before 5th January, 2014. The appellant states that Bridget Dayal, who is

the wife of the appellant No. 1, has executed a power of attorney in favour

of the appellant No. 2, Monisha Kalra and who was always ready and

willing to execute the documents in favour of the respondent.              The

appellant states that due to technical reasons, Bridget Dayal could not have

executed a revocation deed.

4.      We have only recorded the respective contentions of the parties and

not commented on merits, as counsel for the parties have agreed to partial

modification of the impugned order, which is indicated below.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that if the appellant
want to sell, transfer or in any way encumber the property, they will
approach the single Judge with an appropriate application.            Learned
counsel for the respondent states that in case the appellant approach the
single Judge, the application could be considered on merits in accordance
with law.
6.      The aforesaid statements are taken on record.

7.      We clarify that in case an application to the aforesaid effect is filed
 by the appellant, the same will be considered in accordance with law,

without being influenced by any findings or observations in the impugned

order/this order.    We also clarify that till the application is filed and

modification is made, the appellant would not in any way encumber,

transfer or sell the subject matter property.

8.    The appeal is disposed of, without any order as to costs. This order

and observations would not be considered and construed as binding

findings on merits on the case of either side.


                                                 SANJIV KHANNA, J.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. MAY 15, 2017 VKR