Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Htl Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs . Vinod Sood & Ors. on 21 October, 2022
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinod Sood & Ors.
.
Civil Suit No. 12 of 2021.
21.10.2022 Present: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate, for defendants No.1 and 2.
Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate, for defendant No.3. r OMP No. 733 of 2022.
1. Learned counsel for the the defendants seek time to file reply. Be filed within two weeks.
OMP No. 45 of 2021.
2. This application has been filed for interim injunction with the prayer to restrain the non- applicants/defendants No.1 and 2 from entering mutation in revenue record on account of sale deed dated 03.02.2021 executed inter se said non- applicants/defendants with a further prayer to restrain non- applicant/defendant No.3 from dealing with in any manner, change the nature, disposing off or creating third party rights qua the suit land.
3. Reply to the application stands filed.
4. On 10.02.2021, an order in following terms was passed in the application:-
"In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status-quo-qua the nature, possession and revenue entries of the suit land. Parties are further directed not to alienate or encumber the suit property. The provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 be complied with.::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:09:00 :::CIS
5. Further on 25.10.2021, the order dated .
10.02.2021 passed in OMP No. 45 of 2021 was again ordered to remain in force, in the meanwhile. To similar effect another order was passed on 24.11.2021.
6. On 23.09.2022, OMP No. 45 of 2021 was considered by this Court. After arguing for considerable time, learned counsel for the applicant had sought time to have instructions as it had transpired that the plaintiff i.e. M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd., was not a party to the agreement sought to be enforced. The agreement, in respect of which suit has been filed, has been executed between one Shri Vinod Sood and Shri Lalit Kumar, who has been mentioned to be son of Shri Hari Dass, Director of M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd.. The matter was again adjourned to 14.10.2022 on which date learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submitted that his client was making effort to amicably settle the matter and on such ground adjournment was sought.
7. Thereafter, OMP No. 733 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of plaintiff with a prayer as under:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the present Application may kindly be allowed and the name of the Plaintiff i.e. M/S HTL ASSOCIATES Pvt Ltd Registered office at Sharma Niwas,Below BCS,Phase III,New Shimla, Shimla H.P.thought Its Authorized Signatory and Director Sh.Tarun Dogra, be substituted by Sh.Tarun Dogra S/O Sh. Hari Dass R/O Sharma Niwas Below BCS Phase III,New Shimla, Shimla Himachal Pradesh, Director of M/S HIL ASSOCIATES Pvt Ltd Registered office at Sharma Niwas Below BCS,Phase III ,New Shimla, Shimla H.P. & ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:09:00 :::CIS Sh. Lalit Kumar S/O Sh. Hari Dass R/O Sharma Niwas .
Below BCS,Phase III New Shimla, Shimla Himachal Pradesh, Director of M/S HTL ASSOCIATES Pvt Ltd Registered office at Sharma Niwas Below BCS Phase III New Shimla, Shimla H.P. as Plaintiffs in the Civil Suit and it be ordered that the Civil Suit as regard to such Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date the Civil Suit was filed, or any earlier date for all intents and purposes,in the interest of justice. The amendment to the Civil Suit so proposed, as above, as a consequence of substitution be also allowed in the interest of justice."
8. r Shri G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, appears for the applicant and has submitted that the decision on OMP No. 45 of 2021 be deferred till the decision on OMP No.733 of 2022. He has made such submission on the ground that the decision on OMP No. 45 of 2021 at this stage will lead to multiplicity of litigation in future. He further submits that none of the defendants have raised objection as to the maintainability of suit on behalf of M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd.,
9. The original agreement to sell dated 18.02.2019, on the basis of which suit has been filed, has been placed on record. In the agreement Vinod Sood s/o Shri Dwarka Sood is reflected as seller and Shri Lalit Kumar, S/o Shri Hari Dass is shown as purchaser. Admittedly, purchaser Shri Lalit Kumar has not filed the suit. The suit has been filed by M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd., which has been shown to be a private limited company, as per the cause title of the plaint. It being so, plaintiff M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd., is a separate legal ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:09:00 :::CIS entity. Merely by mentioning the signatory to the .
agreement dated 18.02.2019 Shri Lalit Kumar and Tarun Dogra as Directors of M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd., will not mean that the suit has been filed by said persons.
10. The filing of OMP No. 733 of 2022 also establishes the aforesaid fact. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff as impleaded in the suit i.e. M/s HTL Associates cannot have any right to claim interim injunction against the defendants/non-applicants. In the given circumstances of the case, there can be no question of existence of prima facie case in favour of M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd., as plaintiff. Interim order operating against the non- applicants/defendants will definite cause prejudice to their rights, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
11. According, order dated 10.02.2021 passed in OMP No.45 of 2021 and subsequent orders on the said application are vacated and the application is dismissed.
Civil Suit No. 12 of 2021.
List on 18th November, 2022.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge.
21st October, 2022.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:09:00 :::CIS