Delhi High Court
Mr. Pawan Duggal vs India Sothebys International Realty on 11 December, 2023
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.12.2023
+ CM(M) 1596/2023 & CM APPL. 50334/2023
MR. PAWAN DUGGAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Chopra, Ms. Aadhyaa
Khanna, Mr. Siddharth Arora and Mr.
Dhananjay Parth, Advocates
versus
INDIA SOTHEBYS INTERNATIONAL REALTY
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Versha
Singh and Ms. Rhea Borkotoky,
Advocates
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by District Judge, COMM-03,
South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi ('Trial Court') in CS (COMM)
No. 249/2020, titled as M/s India Sotheby's International Realty v.
Samarjeet Singh Sandhu & Ors., dismissing the application filed by the
Petitioner herein i.e., the defendant no.5 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') seeking his deletion from the array of
parties before the Trial Court.
1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant no.5 and the Respondent herein
is plaintiff before the Trial Court.
1.2. The Respondent herein filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC on
15.01.2021 for the recovery of Rs. 17,40,500/- against defendant nos. 1 and
2 (not party to this petition) and for recovery of Rs. 35,03,125/- against the
defendant no. 3 to 5.
1.3. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10
CPC on 26.11.2021 seeking his deletion form the array of parties.
1.4. Vide the impugned order the Trial Court dismissed the said
application observing that the Petitioner is proper and necessary party and
cannot be deleted merely on the ground that he is just director of the
defendant no.3 company therein.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he
seeks a limited relief from this Court to the effect that the Trial Court while
finally adjudicating the suit will decide the liability, if any, of defendant No.
5 i.e., Petitioner uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned
order dated 24.08.2023.
3. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that she has no
objection to the relief sought by the Petitioner.
3.1 She states that in fact, in the impugned order, there is no observation
adverse to the defendant No. 5 and the Trial Court has in fact observed that
the veracity of the transactions will be decided at the stage of final
adjudication.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the order dated 24.08.2023.
5. It is needless to states that any observations made by the Trial Court
in the operative part of the impugned order are only for the purpose of
deciding the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC on the principles
governing the said provision and the same is not an expression on the merits
of the defence raised by defendant No. 5; which needles to state will be
subject to final adjudication at the time of the final hearing in the suit.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed
of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
DECEMBER 11, 2023/rhc/sk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
