Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh Bhatia vs Manju Bhatia on 21 February, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 37/2023
RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocate
with Petitioner in Person.
versus
MANJU BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through: Manoj Singh, Advocate along with
Respondent in person.
% Date of Decision: 21st February, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. The present appeal filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court
Act, 1966 impugns the order dated 10 th February, 2023 passed in
Interlocutory Application (IA) bearing no. 9927/2021 in CS (OS) No.
172/2021 ('Impugned Order'), filed by the Appellant under Order XII Rule
6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), whereby the learned Single
Judge of this Court dismissed the said application.
2. The Appellant is the original plaintiff and Respondent is the original
defendant before the learned Single Judge.
3. The civil suit has been filed by the Appellant for declaration,
permanent and mandatory injunction seeking directions qua eviction of the
Respondent and for recovery of mesne profits, damages on account of
unauthorized occupation.
4. The Appellant is the brother of the Respondent. The Appellant has
filed the suit in its capacity as the lawful owner of the property bearing no.
B-43 and B-44, double storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (suit property).
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the operative portion of
the judgment is at paragraphs 20 and 21. He states that however, the reasons
recorded in paragraph 21 are alien to the entire pleadings. He states that
paragraph 21 refers to an alleged agreement to sell and a purported
fabrication of the said agreement. He states that in the facts of this case,
there is no averment of any agreement to sell and consequently, no
allegation of fabrication. He states that in the facts of this case, the
Respondent has executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 2nd July,
2010 in favour of the Appellant, execution whereof is admitted and the
effect of the said relinquishment deed has not been considered by the Court.
He states that the existence of relationship of licensor and licensee between
the parties has been admitted by the Respondent in her written statement
filed in Civil Suit No. 8830/2015; however, the said admission has not been
deliberated upon in the operative portion of the judgment. He states that the
judgment relied upon in the impugned order pertains to relationship of
landlord-tenant and was not attracted to the facts of this case i.e., licensor-
licensee. He states that, therefore, the matter be remanded back to the
learned Single Judge for consideration.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent fairly states that the
reasons recorded in paragraph 21 of the Impugned Order are out of context
and have no concern with the facts in the present proceedings. He, however,
states that nonetheless the effect of the relinquishment deed has been
considered by the Court at paragraph 20.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
8. There is an error apparent on the face of record in the facts noted and
findings returned by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 21 of the
impugned order. The facts noted in paragraph 21 are alien to the controversy
and outside the pleadings. We also find that the pleas of the Appellant in his
application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and his submissions noted in
the impugned order at paragraph 3 to 10 have not been deliberated upon by
the learned Single Judge while disposing of the said application.
9. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and restore IA No.
9927/2021 to its original number, for a decision afresh by the learned Single
Judge, as per roster bench. It is made clear that the rights and contentions of
the parties are left open and the application will be decided uninfluenced by
any observations made in this order.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is allowed and the
pending applications stand disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2024/hp/ms
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
