Delhi High Court
Kranti Arora vs Digjam Ltd on 8 July, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: April 25, 2022
Decided on: July 08, 2022
+ CM(M) NO. 51983 OF 2018 IN RFA(OS) NO. 7/2011
KRANTI ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Siddharth
Dutta, Advocate.
Vs.
DIGJAM LTD ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Bharati
Budeshra and Mr. Sanjiv K.
Jha, Advocates.
O.P. Khaitan (HUF)
Through its Karta
Sh. Gautam Khaitan ..... Applicant
Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Bharati
Budeshra and Mr. Sanjiv K.
Jha, Advocates.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
CM(M) NO 51983 OF 2018 (Application for Impleadment).
1. This order shall decide an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read
with Order I Rule 8A and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") filed by the applicant
O.P.Khaitan (HUF) for impleadment.
2. The factual background as appearing from record and necessary to
mention to decide present application is that R.B.S. Basakha Singh
was lessee of piece of plot admeasuring 1.398 acres bearing no 6-A,
block no. 11, known as 3& 4, South End Road Lane, New Delhi-
110001 vide registered perpetual lease deed dated 04.11.1942
effective from 23.04.1929 executed between Governor-General in
Council and R.B.S. Basakha Singh. R.B.S. Basakha Singh transferred
right, title and interest in respect of said plot along with built up
structure thereon in favor of his daughter namely Bibi Barrinder Kaur
(now known as Birender Amarjit Singh) vide registered Gift Deed
dated 14.04.1947. Birender Amarjit Singh transferred rights, title and
interest in respect of one-half share in said plot in favor of her son
namely Inder Vijay Singh and two daughters namely Tavleen Singh
and Udaya Hardev Singh vide Gift Deed dated 25.03.1971.
3. M/s General Marketing and Manufacturing Company Ltd.
(GMMCL) was a tenant in respect of said plot/property. Birender
Amarjit Singh entered into an agreement dated 23.07.1971 with
GMMCL vide which GMMCL had agreed to vacate said plot/property
with condition that after reconstruction of said plot/property, GMMCL
would be inducted as tenant in respect of a flat measuring 1800 sq.
feet on the 9th floor @ monthly rent of Rs. 1300/- and said agreement
was made to be valid for period of 10 years only from the date of
handing over of the possession of the flat in the new building
complex. Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay Singh, Tavleen Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
and Udaya Hardev Singh also entered into a Collaboration Agreement
dated 08.09.1979 with M/S Kailash Nath & Associates for building
and development of multi-story Group Housing Scheme (Gauri
Apartments) on said plot with rights to M/S Kailash Nath &
Associates to sell and dispose of residential flats to be constructed on
said plot.
4. GMMCL after reconstruction of building initiated legal proceedings
against Birender Amarjit Singh & others and entered into an
agreement dated 21.08.1984 before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No 2684-85 of 1984 whereby Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay
Singh, Tavleen Singh and Udaya Hardev Singh had agreed to hand
over a flat measuring 1800 sq. feet to GMMCL and accordingly the
Civil Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 21.08.1984. GMMCL
entered into Deed of Assignment dated 30.11.1987 with O. P. Khaitan
(HUF) i.e. applicant whereby assigned its right in respect of the said
flat to the applicant and thereafter, the applicant sublet the flat to the
respondent (erstwhile Birla VXL).
5. The appellant claimed to have invested his hard earned money for
purchase of a flat in Gauri Apartments and entered into an agreement
dated 30.01.1989 with Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay Singh,
Tavleen Singh and Udaya Hardev Singh and partners of M/S Kailash
Nath & Associated for purchase of a flat admeasuring 2200 sq. feet
(space area). The plaintiff became member of Gauri Apartments and
paid update subscription. The appellant also claimed to be allotted flat
bearing no 12, 3-4, South End Lane, New Delhi and was occupant in
possession of said flat. The appellant also took loan from New Bank
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
of India, Tolstoy Marg by hypothecated said flat. The appellant also
carried out renovation in said flat. The appellant when agreed to
purchase a flat in Gauri Apartments from M/s Kailash Nath &
Associates was not aware of legal proceeding pending between
Barinder Amarjit Singh & others and GMMCL.
6. The applicant filed an application bearing IA no 1/1990 in Civil
Appeal No 2684-85/84 before the Supreme Court for directions to
Birender Amarjit Singh & others to hand over possession of the flat
admeasuring 1800 sq. feet on first floor of the property bearing no 3 &
4, South End Road, New Delhi in terms of Agreement dated
21.08.1984 and Deed of Assignment dated
30.11.1987.BirenderAmarjit Singh also filed an affidavit of
Undertaking dated 11.09.1990 in Civil Appeal No 2684-85/84 to keep
available vacant possession of flat in compliance of order dated
21.08.1984.
7. The appellant also filed an application bearing IA no 2/1990 for
impleadment in Civil Appeal bearing no 2684-85/84 by pleading that
Birender Amarjit Singh & others by virtue of consent decree dated
21.08.1984 sold the flat to the appellant for sale consideration of Rs.
11,50,000/- and claimed ownership in respect of the flat and further
pleaded that the applicant being alleged assignee of GMMCL can
claim possession of the flat as a tenant under the appellant. The
application for impleadment was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide
order dated 18.11.1992. The appellant as per clause 15 of the
Agreement dated 30.01.1989 was compelled to hand over possession
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
of the flat bearing no 12 to GMMCL through the assignee i.e. the
applicant.
8. The respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act title as VXL India Ltd. V Birender Amarjit Singh &
others bearing no 2/1993 for fixation of Standard Rent wherein
interim standard rent was fixed vide order dated 19.05.1995 passed by
the court of Additional Rent Controller. Thereafter the appellant being
aggrieved by order dated 19.05.1995 preferred an Appeal titled as
Kranti Arora V VXL India Ltd. & others bearing RCA no 50/97
before Rent Controller Tribunal which was decided vide order dated
03.04.1998 whereby order dated 19.05.1995 was set aside. The
applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was
allowed vide order dated 10.01.2001. The respondent filed an Appeal
before the Rent Control Tribunal and vide order dated 24.07.2004, the
order dated 10.01.2001 was set aside and the application under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC was ordered to be rejected. The applicant preferred
CM(M) bearing no. 1433/04 against order dated 24.07.2004 which is
pending before this court.
9. The applicant filed a suit for possession and damages bearing no
62/2001 against the respondent which was dismissed by the court of
the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 29.07.2005. The
applicant preferred an Appeal bearing RFA no 650/05.
10. The appellant also filed a civil suit titled as Kranti Arora V M/S
Birla VXL Ltd. bearing no 1444/1998 for possession and damages
against the respondent in respect of flat bearing no 12, 3-4, South End
Lane, New Delhi which was contested by the respondent. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
respondent filed an application bearing IA no. 3185/99 under section
50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Article 141 of the
Constitution and Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was rejected vide
order dated 16.05.2000 passed by learned Single Judge of this court.
The respondent filed an application bearing IA no 5528/2003 for
impleading O.P. Khaitan (HUF) i.e. the applicant and Birender
Amarjit Singh as the defendant no 2 & 3. The application was
contested by the applicant. The said application was allowed to be
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.08.2005 passed by
learned Single Judge of this court. The title of the respondent in the
suit was allowed to be amended from VXL to Digjam Ltd. vide order
dated 05.11.2008. The learned Single Judge of this court vide
judgment delivered on 07.12.2010 dismissed the suit bearing no
1444/1998 by holding that the suit is not maintainable in view of bar
of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant being
aggrieved filed the present Appeal.
11. The applicant in application under disposal besides mentioning
factual background as detailed hereinabove also stated that the
applicant and the respondent arrived at a settlement in RFA no.
650/2005 on terms and conditions as mentioned in joint application
bearing IA no 29926/2018. The application was allowed vide order
dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this court and
RFA bearing no 650/2005 was ordered to be disposed of. The terms
and conditions of settlement are reproduced verbatim as under:-
i. Both the Appellant(applicant herein) and the Respondent
would have equal beneficial interest in the property being
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
Flat No. 12, Gauri apartments, 3-4 Rajesh pilot Lane
(formerly known as South End Lane), New Delhi in the ratio
of fifty-fifty (equal share)
ii. The property would be sold to the buyer giving the
highest value for the property/ beneficial parties' interest,
subject to the outcome of the litigation between Respondent
herein and Kranti Arora.
iii. Considering the litigation pending between the
Respondent and one Sh. Kranti Arora, if any amount is to
be paid to Kranti Arora out of the disposed of the Beneficial
interest in the said property by the parties hereto then the
same would be paid in equal proportion by the Appellant
and the Respondent,
iv. Both the Appellant and the Respondent would endeavor
to get the buyer for the property/Beneficial interest in the
said property at the earliest and till such time the
Respondent would continue to remain in possession and take
care of the property.
V. Both the parties would make endeavor to bring an end to
the litigation being RFA (OS) No. 7/2011 between the
Respondent herein and Sh. Kranti Arora before Hon'ble
High Court.
12. The applicant further stated that the applicant is having substantial
interest in the property in question which is subject matter of present
RFA and as such the applicant is a necessary party. The outcome of
present proceedings shall have direct effect on the rights and interest
of the applicant. The respondent earlier had moved an application
seeking impleadment of the applicant and the applicant had opposed
said application on the ground that impleadment of the applicant was
being sought to avoid ejectment of the respondent from the flat in
question in legal proceedings already instituted by the applicant. The
presence of applicant in present proceedings is proper and necessary.
The outcome of present appeal shall affect the right of the applicant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
and no proper adjudication can be done without impleadment of the
applicant. The applicant is lawful owner of property/flat bearing no 12
situated at 3-4 South End Lane, New Delhi. No prejudice shall cause
to the parties by adding the applicant to the array of parties. It was
prayed that the applicant be impleaded as a party in the present appeal.
13. The appellant contested the application and filed the reply. The
respondent in preliminary objections stated that the application is
gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed with ulterior
motives and mala fide intention to grab the flat in question owned by
the Appellant. The applicant has not appeared with clean hands and
has not disclosed true and correct facts. The applicant did not have
substantial interest in the flat in question. The applicant is in
connivance with the respondent. The respondent earlier filed an
application bearing IA No5528/2003 in CS(OS) No. 1444/1998 for
impleading the applicant and Birender Amarjit Singh in the suit. The
applicant filed a reply to the application. The said application was
ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.08.2005
passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. The civil suit was
filed in year 1998 and finally decided in year 2011 but the applicant
never initiated any legal proceedings for his impleadment and opposed
his impleadment during trial of the case. The respondent preferred an
application bearing SR No 2/1993 titled VXL India Ltd. V Birender
Amarjit Singh & others before the court of Additional Rent
Controller, Delhi for fixation of Standard rent in respect of the flat in
question. The applicant in said proceedings had filed an application
for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
which was allowed vide Order dated 10.01.2001. The respondent
challenged the Order dated 10.01.2001 in the court of Rent Control
Tribunal and the application for impleadment was rejected vide Order
dated 24/7/2004 passed by the court of the Rent Control Tribunal and
order dated 10.01.2001 was set aside. The applicant had preferred
C.M.(M) NO 1433/04 which has been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court vide Order dated 15.03.2012.The presence of
applicant is neither necessary nor proper in present appeal. The
respondent and the applicant are hand in glove with each other and are
enjoying possession of flat which is reflecting from fact that the
applicant and the respondent entered into a settlement in RFA No. 650
of 2005 which was allowed vide Order dated 01.08.2018.The
appellant is a lawful owner of the flat which cannot be sold or
transferred without his consent. The appellant thereafter filed an
application bearing C.M. No 35214/2018 for restraining the
respondent from entering into sale agreement, or parting with
possession or creating any third party interest or from transferring any
kind of rights in respect of flat and the respondent made a statement
that the respondent has no intention to sell or part with possession or
create third party interest in the flat in question which was recorded
vide proceedings dated 31.08.2018. The appellant on reply on merit
also denied other contents as mentioned in reply.
14. The respective learned Senior Counsels for the appellant and the
applicant advanced arguments in line with averments as stated in
application under disposal and reply and also submitted oral
arguments which are considered in right perspective.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant argued that
the applicant had acquired absolute statutory tenancy rights in respect
of flat bearing no 12 vide Deed of Assignment dated 30.11.1987
executed between the applicant and GMMCL and thereafter,
the applicant has let out the flat no 12 to the respondent vide
agreement dated 20.06.1989. The presence of applicant in present
proceedings is not only proper but also necessary as any decree passed
in the present suit/appeal would affect the rights of the applicant.
The applicant on earlier occasion opposed its impleadment in the suit
on application filed by the respondent. The objections as raised by
the appellant are misconceived. It was argued that the applicant
be allowed to be imleaded as necessary party. The counsel for
the applicant cited Sadashiv Shyama Sawant (dead) through LRs
and others V. Anita Anant Sawant, (2010) 3 SCC 385.
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that
the applicant is neither an owner nor a tenant in respect of the flat no
12 and is claiming through original tenant GMMCL. The applicant
allegedly sublet the flat no 12 to the respondent. The applicant and the
respondent are allegedly occupying the flat no 12 and are guilty of
trespassing the flat no 12. The present application for impleadment is
filed with mala fide intention. The judgment cited by the counsel for
the applicant has no relevance under given facts and circumstances of
the case. The application is liable to be dismissed.
17. Order I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 deals with parties to the
suit. Rule 10(2) deals with power of court to strike out or add the
parties. It reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
10. --------
(2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The Court may at
any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such terms as may
appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any
party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant,
be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to
have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order
to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be
added.
18. Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of
a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff
being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person
against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is
required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as
defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons
against whom he has no grievance. A third party is entitled to be
impleaded as necessary party if that party is likely to suffer any legal
injury due to outcome of the suit. The doctrine of dominus litis should
not be over stretched in impleading the parties. The court can order a
person to be impleaded as necessary party if his presence is required to
decide real matter in dispute effectively. Merely because the, plaintiff
does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of
an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order 1 Rule
10(2) CPC are having wide amplitude in operation. The Supreme
Court in various decisions had interpreted scope and ambit of legal
provisions as contained in Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal V Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524interpreted legal
provision as contained in Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and held as under:-
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court
to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by
the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on
record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be
decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which
provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be
added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can
be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence
an effective order can be made but whose presence is
necessary for a complete and final decision on the question
involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is
generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court
but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view
of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
19. The Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh V Shivnath
Mishra, (1995) 3 SCC 147 interpreted Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and
held as under:-
By operation of the above-quoted rule though the court may
have power to strike out the name of a party improperly
joined or add a party either on application or without
application of either party, but the condition precedent is
that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the
party to be added, would be necessary in order to enable the
court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and
settle all questions involved in the suit. To bring a person as
party- defendant is not a substantive right but one of
procedure and the court has discretion in its proper exercise.
The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons
who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter
so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
20. The Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V
Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd.,(2010) 7 SCC 417
while interpreting Order I Rule 10(2) CPC observed as under:-
The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that
the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the
persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be
compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek
any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no
right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But
this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule
10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the Code", for short),
which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary
parties.
.........The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at
any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific
performance), either upon or even without any application,
and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that
any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a)
any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or
defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence
before the court may be necessary in order to enable the
court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and
settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is
given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is
found to be a necessary party or proper party.
A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been
joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree
could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is
not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A
"proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party,
is a person whose presence would enable the court to
completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all
matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person
in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the
court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes
of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a
right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided
against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary
party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.
Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2)
CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-
rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as
a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to
strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The
discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either
suomotu or on the application of the plaintiff or the
defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a
party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is
improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or
as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or
proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any
conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to
impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1
Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according
to reason and fair play and not according to whims and
caprice.
21. The Supreme Court in Bibi Zubaida Khatoon V Nabi
Hassan, (2004) 1 SCC 191 laid down broad principles which should
govern disposal of an application for impleadment which are as under:
1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on
an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct
impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been
joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the
Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of
the issues involved in the suit.
2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as
party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree
cannot be passed by the Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable
the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate
upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person
in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.
4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party,
the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his
impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff.
5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order
impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board,
and who files application for being joined as party within
reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the
pending litigation.
6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious
conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a
transaction made by the owner of the suit property in
violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the
application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully
justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.
The Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited &
others V Tosh Apartments Private Limited & others,
(2012)8SCC384 referred the above mentioned decisions.
22. It is reflecting from perusal of record that R.B.S. Basakha Singh
was original lessee of plot now bearing no 3& 4, South End Road
Lane, New Delhi-110001. Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay Singh,
Tavleen Singh and Udaya Hardev Singh are successor in interest of
R.B.S. Basakha Singh by virtue of Gift Deed dated 14.04.1947 and
Gift Deed dated 25.03.1971 respectively. GMMCL was a tenant in
respect of said plot/property and in terms of settlement had agreed to
vacate said plot/property with condition that GMMCL would be
inducted as a tenant in flat measuring 1800 sq. feet after reconstruction
of said plot/property. Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay Singh,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
Tavleen Singh and Udaya Hardev Singh entered into a Collaboration
Agreement dated 08.09.1979 with M/S Kailash Nath & Associates for
building and development of multi-story Group Housing Scheme
(Gauri Apartments) on said plot. GMMCL entered into an agreement
dated 21.08.1984 with Birender Amarjit Singh & others in Civil
Appeal No 2684-85 of 1984 before the Supreme Court whereby
Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay Singh, Tavleen Singh and Udaya
Hardev Singh had agreed to hand over a flat measuring 1800 sq. feet
to GMMCL. GMMCL assigned its right in respect of the said flat to
the applicant vide Deed of Assignment dated 30.11.1987 and
thereafter, the applicant sublet the flat to the respondent (erstwhile
Birla VXL).The Appellant also entered into an agreement dated
30.01.1989 with Birender Amarjit Singh, Inder Vijay Singh, Tavleen
Singh and Udaya Hardev Singh and partners of M/S Kailash Nath &
Associated for purchase of a flat admeasuring 2200 sq. feet (space
area) and stated to be allotted flat bearing no 12. The applicant filed an
application for Directions bearing IA no 1/1990 in Civil Appeal No
2684-85/84 before the Supreme Court wherein Birender Amarjit Singh
filed an affidavit of Undertaking dated 11.09.1990 to keep available
vacant possession of flat in compliance of order dated 21.08.1984.The
appellant as per clause 15 of the Agreement dated 30.01.1989handed
over possession of the flat bearing no 12 to GMMCL through the
assignee i.e. the applicant. The applicant in petition filed by the
respondent under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act titled as
VXL India Ltd. V Birender Amarjit Singh & others bearing no
2/1993 for fixation of Standard Rent filed an application under Order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
1 Rule 10 CPC which was finally dismissed by this court. The
applicant filed a suit for possession and damages bearing no 62/2001
against the respondent which was dismissed by the court of the
Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 29.07.2005 and Appeal
bearing RFA no 650/05 has already been disposed of by this court.
The appellant filed present civil suit titled as Kranti Arora V M/S
Birla VXL Ltd. bearing no 1444/1998 for possession and damages
against the respondent in respect of flat bearing no. 12 wherein the
respondent had filed an application bearing IA no 5528/2003 for
impleading O. P. Khaitan (HUF) i.e. the applicant and Birender
Amarjit Singh as the defendant no 2 & 3 and said application was
contested by the applicant and was allowed to be dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 11.08.2005 passed by learned Single
Judge of this court.
23. The applicant is claiming his right, title and interest in respect of
flat no 12 on basis of Deed of assignment dated 30.11.1987 stated to
be executed in its favor by original tenant GMMCL in plot no 3-4,
South End Lane, New Delhi and thereafter, the applicant sublet the
flat to the respondent (erstwhile Birla VXL). The appellant is claiming
himself as owner of the flat no 12 on basis of Agreement dated
30.01.1989. There is long history of litigation amongst different
claimants of the flat no 12 in different capacity. The applicant was
aware of the pendency of present suit between the appellant and the
respondent. The applicant also participated in legal and judicial
proceedings initiated before the courts of Additional Rent Controller,
Rent Control Tribunal and thereafter before this court as detailed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
hereinabove. The applicant in past in various litigation between the
concerned parties had raised its impleadment which was suitably
adjudicated. The application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC filed by
the applicant in petition under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act
as detailed hereinabove was finally dismissed by this court.
24. It is pertinent to mention that in present suit the respondent filed an
application bearing IA no 5528/2003 for impleading O. P. Khaitan
(HUF) i.e. the applicant and Birender Amarjit Singh as the defendant
no 2 & 3 but the applicant contested said application which was
allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.08.2005
passed by learned Single Judge of this court. The issue of
impleadment of the applicant as necessary party in present suit as such
has already been adjudicated finally and the applicant cannot be
allowed to raise issue of impleadment again and again particularly at
appellate stage. The applicant can also not be allowed to change its
stand regarding imlpeadment first by opposing application under
Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and thereafter by filing application for its
impleadment which is under disposal and it would not be in interest of
justice. The applicant has already initiated appropriate legal
proceedings to establish his right, title and interest in respect of the flat
in suit for possession and damages bearing no 62/2001 filed against
the respondent which was dismissed by the court of the Additional
District Judge vide judgment dated 29.07.2005 and Appeal bearing
RFA no 650/05 has already been disposed of.
25. The appellant in plaint is alleging that the respondent is trespassers
in respect of flat no 12 and the respondent is using the flat without any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
right. The suit bearing no 1444/1998 was filed by the appellant in year
1998 against the respondent which was dismissed vide impugned
judgment dated 07.12.2010. The present appeal is being filed to
challenge impugned judgment dated 07.12.2010 which is in
continuation of suit. The appellant being dominus litis is required to
establish his right, title and interest in respect of flat no 12. The
presence of applicant is not necessary for effective and complete
adjudication of the issues involved in present litigation. The applicant
as such cannot be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. The
application under disposal is also filed after unduly and unexplained
delay. The pleas taken by the applicant in application under disposal
and the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
applicant in support of the application under disposal are without are
without any legal basis.
26. We after considering every aspect of pleas taken by the applicant
and arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsels for parties are
of opinion that application is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.
RFA(OS) NO 7/2011.
List on the date already fixed, i.e. 22.09.2022.
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
(JUDGE)
JULY 08, 2022/'N/KG'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:13.07.2022
16:47:37
