Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Romi Garg vs Bdr Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors on 25 June, 2020

Author: Hima Kohli

Bench: Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad

$~1.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     FAO(OS) 116/2018
      ROMI GARG                                        ..... Appellant
                         Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior
                         Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Sinha and Ms. Nandini
                         Sahni, Advocates

                         versus


      BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS
                                                    ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate
                   with Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Advocate for R-1.
                   Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for R-3.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

                         ORDER

% 25.06.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING CM APPL. 13383/2020 (by the appellant for modification of the orders dated 18.07.2018 and 16.01.2020)

1. The present application has been moved by the appellant/plaintiff praying inter alia that the status quo orders dated 08.07.2018 and 16.01.2020, passed in the appeal may be modified and it be clarified that the said orders will not come in the way of the implementation and compliance of the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2020 and the order dated 17.06.2020, passed in CS(OS) 109/2017 filed by the appellant/plaintiff on FAO(OS) 116/2018 Page 1 of 3 the Original Side of this Court.

2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/plaintiff states that during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent No.2 and the appellant have arrived at a settlement, wherein the former has expressed his readiness and willingness to abide by the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2020 passed in the captioned suit and has requested the appellant to pay the decretal amount of Rs.5,69,00,000/- alongwith interest @8% from 27.02.2017 till the date of deposit to his daughter, Ms. Sonia Modi.

3. Thereafter, I.A. 4558/2020 was filed by the appellant in CS(OS) 109/2017 for modification/directions. Vide order dated 17.06.2020, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said application and modified the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2020, whereby the appellant has been permitted to pay the decretal amount with interest. It is stated that pursuant thereto, the appellant had issued four cheques in favour of the daughter of the respondent No.2 which have been duly encashed. The learned Single Judge has also allowed the respondent No.2 to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the suit premises in favour of the nominee of appellant within 10 days reckoned from 17.06.2020, i.e., on or before 27.06.2020. In this background, the present application has been moved.

4. We have enquired from learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the subsequent developments as narrated above, instead of pressing the present application, why should the interim application wherein the orders dated 08.07.2018 and 16.01.2020, modification whereof is being prayed for, be not withdrawn by the appellant.

5. Mr. Khanna, Senior Advocate states on instructions from his briefing counsel that the appellant is willing to withdraw CM APPL.28126/2018. Accordingly, CM APPL. 28126/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn and the present application is disposed of.

6. The above order is without prejudice to the rights of the respondent No.1 in OMP 3/2017 filed by it and pending adjudication on the Original Side of this Court.

HIMA KOHLI, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JUNE 25, 2020 rkb FAO(OS) 116/2018 Page 3 of 3