Delhi High Court - Orders
O-37, R-3(4). Swaranjit Singh Sayal vs M.K Jain on 12 September, 2023
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3980/2014, I.A. 16784/2021 -O-38, R-5 & I.A. 8912/2017 -
O-37, R-3(4).
SWARANJIT SINGH SAYAL ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Davinder Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Srivats Kaushal, Adv.
versus
M.K JAIN ..... Defendant
Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Vipul Wadhwa,
Ms. Carina Arora, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 12.09.2023 I.A. 5441/2018
1. This is an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the defendant seeking leave to defend the suit.
2. The present suit has been filed seeking recovery of Rs.4.17 crores from the defendant, which amount comprises of a sum of Rs.3 crores paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under receipt dated 23.12.2011 towards part sale consideration of property bearing no. C-107, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi and interest @ 18% p.a on the said amount.
3. In support of the application seeking leave to defend, Dr. Amit George, learned counsel for the defendant has raised two primary contentions. The first and foremost being that the receipt dated 23.12.2011, based on which the present suit has been preferred by the plaintiff cannot be treated as a written contract as the said receipt This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:30:59 admittedly does not contain the complete particulars of the transaction which the parties had orally envisaged entering into. The said receipt merely records that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 2 crores to the defendant towards part sale consideration of the subject property but does not mention the total sale consideration. His plea, thus is that this receipt, based on which the present suit has been filed, does not fulfil the pre-requisites of a 'written contract' as stipulated under Order XXXVII Rule 1 (2) (b) CPC. In support of his plea that this receipt cannot be treated as a 'written contract', Dr. George seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Yogesh Babanrao Vedpathak vs. Ranjeet Singh Pyara Singh Kaura 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 642. He also places reliance on a decision of a Co- ordinate Bench in J.R. Sharma Overseas Ltd. vs. Abner Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 34, to contend that in any event, the plaintiff's claim for interest would fall beyond the scope of the Order XXXVII.
4. He further submits that even as per the plaintiff, the amount of Rs. 3 crores was paid to the defendant as earnest money and has therefore on account of the plaintiff resiling from the agreement, already stands forfeited by the defendant. He, therefore, contends that the defendant is entitled to be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit.
5. While the Court was in the midst of hearing submissions of Dr. George, it has been put to him as to whether the defendant would be willing to bring a quietus to the matter by paying a sum of Rs.3 crores to the plaintiff. He prays for and is granted time to obtain instructions.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:30:59
6. At request, list on 06.11.2023.
7. In the meanwhile, Mr. Davinder Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff will also obtain instructions as to whether the plaintiff would be willing to amicably resolve the matter on the same terms.
REKHA PALLI, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2023/al This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:30:59