Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Lamba Estate & Anr vs Navneet Singh on 22 February, 2021

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                 $~1
                 *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 +       CM(M) 119/2021 & CM No.4864/2021, 7111/2021
                         M/S LAMBA ESTATE & ANR.                                  ..... Petitioners
                                      Through                       Mr.Rohit Goel, Adv.

                                            versus

                         NAVNEET SINGH                                         ..... Respondent
                                      Through                       Mr.Rakesh Saini, Adv.

                         CORAM:
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                 ORDER

% 22.02.2021 This hearing has been held by video conferencing.

This is application filed by the petitioner to file additional documents on record. As the documents are found to be relevant to the dispute raised in the present petition, the same is allowed and the documents annexed thereto are taken on record.

CM(M) 119/2021

1. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at this stage itself.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-07, South East District, Saket Courts in CS No.1132/17, to the limited extent in so far as it directs the petitioner herein to furnish the title deeds of property bearing no. A-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi or H-13, Basement, Masjid Moth, Greater Signature Not Verified SHALOO BATRA Kailash-III, New Delhi, or furnish a security for an amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- either in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt or Bank Guarantee in order to secure the rights of the respondent herein.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire order is based only on the fact that the petitioner had earlier, by mistake in his pleading and also in submission through the counsel, submitted that the property bearing No. A-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi belonged to the petitioner. He submits that the said property was taken on lease in the year 2016 by way of a registered Lease Deed dated 25.04.2016. The said lease had thereafter been extended by the petitioner on 01.04.2019 and was surrendered on 08.07.2020.

4. The petitioner has now placed on record a copy of the Lease Deed dated 25.04.2016 duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar of Documents vide Registration no.560, Book no.1, Vol. no.25, page 53 to 59 on 26.04.2016 as an additional document alongwith CM No.7111/2021.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above referred Lease Deed was not on record before the learned Trial Court. He submits that in the affidavit supporting the written statement filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court he had stated his residential address to be the same, that is, A-13, Kailash Colony, Ground Floor, New Delhi, which as per the Lease Deed now placed on record is merely a shop. He further submits that there were other properties also which had been disposed of by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. The transaction in question is of the year 2015. The suit has been pending adjudication since July, 2018 and is at the stage of recording of the Signature Not Verified SHALOO BATRA evidence. Admittedly, the application under Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came about only because the petitioner shifted his residence from Delhi to Gurugram. The application itself alleges the petitioner to be owning other properties details whereof is given in paragraph 5 of the application of the respondent before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner explained the status of these properties in his reply. Neither the respondent herein nor the learned Trial Court has stated that the status of these properties as given in the reply was false. In fact, the petitioner has admitted that he has a 33% share in a floor in property bearing no. H-1/5, DLF Phase-I, Gurugram, as also the basement floor at H-13, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi. The petitioner has further stated that the averment of the respondent that the petitioner intends to shift to Canada was without any basis. He further submits that there is no other case in which the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused as alleged by the respondent.

7. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. I therefore, do not consider that this was a fit case or stage for the learned Trial Court to exercise it powers under Order XXXIX Rule 5 CPC.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though with respect to the property bearing no. H-13, Basement, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi, the petitioner merely has a General Power of Attorney from the owners of the property duly registered with the Sub- Registrar of Documents on 21.07.2016, the said basement is in his ownership and in his possession. He further undertakes that the petitioner shall neither act on the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour to Signature Not Verified SHALOO BATRA create any third party interest in the property nor part with its possession to any third party without seeking prior permission from the learned Trial Court.

10. In view of the status of the properties as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Impugned Order insofar as it directs the petitioner to produce the title deeds of property bearing no. A-13, Kailash Colony or H-13, Basement, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi, or furnish a security of an amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner no.2 shall file an undertaking in form of an affidavit before the learned Trial Court within ten days from today to the effect that he shall not create any third party interest in the property bearing no. H-13, Basement, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi or act on the General Power of Attorney to create any third party interest in the said property or part with its possession, without obtaining leave of the learned Trial Court during the pendency of the suit before the learned Trial Court.

11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to cost.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2021/Arya Signature Not Verified SHALOO BATRA