Delhi High Court
M K Subba vs Karan Luthra on 9 July, 2018
$~30
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 109/2018, CAV.No.606/2018 & CM No.26584/2018
% Date of decision : 9th July, 2018
M K SUBBA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Kunal Sabharwal, Adv.
versus
KARAN LUTHRA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Ms.
Sahiba Pantel and Mr. Aditya
Mishra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
CAV.No.606/2018
The caveator has been represented and heard.
The caveat stands discharged.
CM No.26584/2018
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
FAO(OS) 109/2018
1. The appellant assails the order dated 24th May, 2018 passed by
the ld. Single Judge on I.A.No.1689/2018 confirming an interim order
of injunction dated 5th February, 2018 restraining the defendant from
selling, alienating or transferring the suit property measuring 13
bighas 5 biswas bearing Khasra Nos.179/2/1 (1-05), 179/2/2 (0-11),
180/2 (2-10), 181/2/1 (1-05), 180/2/2 (2-02), 181/1 (2-11), 183/1 (2-
11) with farm house, tube well, boundary wall, trees and other fitting
and fixtures situated in village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli,
New Delhi and rejecting I.A.No.3991/2018 filed by the
appellant/defendant therein under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC in
CS(OS)No.45/2018.
2. Ld. Single Judge has found that the respondents have
established a prima facie case in the suit wherein a prayer was made
for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7 th June, 2018.
The ld. Single Judge has observed that the transaction of loan set-up
by the appellant/defendant in the suit of Rs.12 crores was its defence
which had to be proved.
3. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has asserted that the loan transaction
was a contract independent of the agreement to sell; that the plea of
the defendant that he had returned the loan amount of Rs.11.6 crores
between 17th December, 2012 to 28th February, 2014; that the
repayments having been made without supporting documentation
recording the same, these pleas had to be proved and required
evidence during trial.
4. In this background, the finding of the ld. Single Judge that the
plaintiff/respondent herein had made out a prima facie case entitling
him to confirmation of the ad interim ex parte injunction cannot be
faulted with.
5. At this stage, Mr. Balbir Singh, ld. Senior Counsel for the
appellant submits that grave prejudice will result to the respondent if
there was delay in adjudication of the suit. Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, ld.
Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that he joins the request for
expeditious adjudication of the matter.
6. We are informed that the suit is listed on 17th August 2018 for
framing of issues and hearing on the application filed by the
appellant/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
7. We are sure that the ld. Single Judge would proceed in the
matter expeditiously in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
Dasti.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 09, 2018
aj
