Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1594/2023 on 8 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-482 No. 1594 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy A.G., for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
An agreement for sale being that of 8th
August, 2018, was executed in favour of the
opposite party to the C-482 Application by the
applicants. When the sale deed was not executed,
the opposite party to the C-482 Application, had
instituted a Civil Suit, being Civil Suit No. 146 of
2021, which has been decreed by the Court of Civil
Judge (S.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, by a judgment and decree as it was rendered
on 11thJuly, 2022.
The learned counsel for the applicants
argues, that the agreement for sale executed by the
applicants would be a void document, because the
same was executed in favour of the complainant,
who was a plaintiff in a suit, on the ground, that he
was not the resident of India. Thus, the agreement
for sale in his favour would be a void document, in
the absence of fulfilling certain prior mandatory
conditions.
So far the opposite party is concerned, he has
appeared before the Court and had made a specific
statement and as it is argued by the learned counsel
for the applicants, that he is not the resident of
India, is absolutely false. Because he contends that
he is still the resident of India, and this fact stands
fortified because of the decree as executed in their
favour in Suit No. 146 of 2021, Karan Singh Vs.
Jagtar Singh.
Apart from it, in case, if the agreement for
sale was void on account of the aforesaid fact of
respondent being non Indian, as argued by the
learned counsel for the applicants, they have to get
the document declared as to be void document by
the competent Court and not by way of filing of the
C-482 Application, wherein the Suit contending
thereof, that since, it was projected by the opposite
party to be the resident of another country, they
could not have got their agreement of sale executed
under law.
Faced with the decree of 11th July, 2022, in
fact, the propriety of the agreement for sale since
now it stands accepted by the judicial dictum, and
which cannot be disturbed until and unless, the
same is put to challenge by the applicants before the
competent Court by adopting a legally reckoned
competent procedure.
Thus, the very basis of putting a challenge to
the proceedings drawn by the respondents in the
instant C-482 Application, by way of Criminal Case
No. 767 of 2022, State Vs. Jagtar Singh and others,
for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 of the IPC, contending thereof, that the
agreement for sale, which was executed was under
a false pretext and a fraudulent document, is a fact,
which this Court will not venture into at this stage,
otherwise, it would amount to sitting over the civil
decree of 11th July, 2022.
Recording the aforesaid statement with
regard to the resident of the opposite party to be
still a resident of India, leaving all contentions open
for the applicants to be argued before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, this C-482 Application is laid to rest.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 08.08.2023
Shiv
