Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S K.J. Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Onkar Lal Rathore on 16 June, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
F. A. No.423 of 2016
M/s. K. J. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal Rathore & Ors.
Indore, Dated:- 16/06/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri A. K. Sethi, Senior Counsel with Shri Prateek
Maheshwari, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nidesh Gupta, Senior Counsel with Shri Vishal Baheti,
Counsel for respondent No.4.
1. Heard on I. A. No.1572 of 2021, which is an application filed by appellant/plaintiff against the respondent No.4 under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Rule 4 and Section 151 of CPC for alleged breach of conditional order dated 08.10.2020 passed by this Court.
2. Also heard on I.A. No.1724 of 2021, an application for vacating interim order dated 08.10.2020 filed by appellant against the respondent No.4 on the ground of alleged breach of its condition.
3. Shri Nidesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted at the outset that he is ready to argue the matter finally and would not take more than 15 minutes to argue the matter.
4. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by Shri A. K. Sethi, Senior Counsel on the ground that that first of all these I.As have to be decided first regarding the breach of the order passed by this Court only then the matter can be heard finally.
5. Thus, these interim applications have arisen out of the order 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE F. A. No.423 of 2016 M/s. K. J. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal Rathore & Ors. passed by this Court on 08.10.2020, whereby while considering the I.A. No.2572 of 2020 filed by the respondent No.4 - M/s. Seven Star Properties Pvt. Ltd., seeking interim relief to transfer the suit land, this Court, vide its order dated 08.10.2020, directed that the respondent no.4 is permitted to sell the suit land subject to the outcome of the appeal, the respondent no.4 shall duly convey the fact of the pendency of this appeal as well as the condition that the sale shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal to the purchaser and in case the appellant succeeds, the respondent no.4 shall be bound to revert back the land free from all encumbrances. It was also directed that the respondent no.4 shall also furnish full particular of the buyer(s) and the sale consideration and other relevant facts having an impact over the rights of the parties particularly the appellant, to the Court. Before alienation, the respondent no.4 shall submit an undertaking before the Court expressing his consent to comply with the conditions imposed.
6. Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued that the respondent No.4 has clearly violated the order passed by this Court, as after the aforesaid order was passed, the respondent No.4 has executed as many as 35 sale deeds for a total consideration of Rs.6,51,91,072/- to the purchasers without specifically mentioning 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE F. A. No.423 of 2016 M/s. K. J. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal Rathore & Ors. the directions of this Court in the sale deeds because it was mandatory for the respondent No.4 to put it in the writing in the sale deeds regarding pendency of this appeal before this Court and also that the sale deeds should be subject to the final decision of this court.
7. Shri Sethi has submitted that the aforesaid sale deeds have been executed in violation of the order passed by this court and has seriously prejudiced the rights of the appellant if the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.
8. Shri Nidesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court inasmuch as the respondent No.4 has already informed the purchasers of the land regarding pendency of the present appeal. It is further submitted by shri Gupta that the authorized person of respondent No.4 has already sworn in an affidavit before this court to the effect that he has already informed the concerned purchasers regarding pendency of this appeal before this Court and it has also been informed that the sale deeds which are being executed would be subject to the final decision of this Court in the present appeal. Thus, it is submitted that the only requirement of the order passed by this Court on 08.10.2020 was to inform the purchasers regarding pendency of this appeal and that the sale would 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE F. A. No.423 of 2016 M/s. K. J. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal Rathore & Ors. be subject to the final disposal of this appeal also, which duty the respondent No.4 has duly performed and it was not necessary for them to put it as a condition in the sale deed, which has been executed by the respondent No.4. Thus, it is submitted that both the applications being devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. From the record, it is apparent that while disposing of the I.A. No.2572 of 2020, this Court has passed the following order which is being reproduced :-
"12. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, their claims to suit property, the evidence produced before the trial Court particularly in respect of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/appellant, the current status of the parties so also the suit land, relative hardship to be caused to the parties, the measures to secure the interests of the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and proper to allow the application. Therefore, without commenting or discussing the merits of the case in detail, the application is allowed.
13. The applicant R-4 is permitted to sell the suit land subject to the outcome of the appeal. The applicant shall duly convey the fact of the pendency of this appeal as well as the condition that the sale shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal to the purchaser. In case the appellant succeeds, the applicant shall be bound to revert back the land free from all encumbrances. He shall furnish full particular of the buyer(s) and the sale consideration and other relevant facts having an impact over the rights of the parties particularly the appellant, to the Court. Before alienation, he shall submit an undertaking before the Court expressing his consent to 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE F. A. No.423 of 2016 M/s. K. J. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal Rathore & Ors.
comply with the conditions imposed.
14. The IA No. 2572/2020 stands disposed off accordingly."
11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid direction clearly reveals that it was the duty of the respondent No.4/applicant in I.A. No.2572/2020 to convey the fact of pendency of this appeal as well as the condition that the sale shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeal to the purchasers and in case if the appellant succeeds, the applicant shall be bound to revert back the land free from its encumbrances/purchasers. It is apparent that there is no such direction by this Court that such conditions should also be put into writing in the sale deed and should be part and parcel of the sale deed. In such circumstances, when the respondent No.4 has stated on oath on an affidavit to the effect that the aforesaid directions have already been conveyed to the purchasers, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, this Court has no doubt that the directions issued by this Court have been duly complied with. The appellant has also not come up with any such document to demonstrate that the purchasers, who have purchased the properties from the respondent No.4 were not informed of the aforesaid order.
12. Consequently, both the applications i.e. I.A. No.1572/2021 and I.A. No.1724/2021 being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed. 6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE F. A. No.423 of 2016 M/s. K. J. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal Rathore & Ors.
13. This Court is also of the opinion that the matter may be heard finally at an earlier date. In view of the same, let the matter be listed for final hearing at this stage only on 29.07.2021. Learned counsel for the parties are also directed to file a brief synopsis of the case beforehand.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2021.06.23 17:43:47 +05'30'