Delhi High Court - Orders
Nagesh Kumar Mehra & Anr vs Ravinder Kumar Mehra & Anr on 29 January, 2019
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3567/2014
NAGESH KUMAR MEHRA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. B. Vinodh Khanna, Advocate
with Wife of Plaintiff No.1 and
Plaintiff No.2 in person.
(M:9810195544)
versus
RAVINDER KUMAR MEHRA & ANR ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Jitender Verma, Advocate for D-
1 with Defendant No.1 in person.
(M:9213970111)
Ms. Shimpy Armon Sharma,
Advocate for Applicants in
O.A.57/2018. (M:9971550603)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 29.01.2019 I.A. 7411/2018 (delay)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA 57/2018. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
2. I.A. is disposed of.
O.A. 57/2018 (under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 1967)
3. Parties have been heard in the matter. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 19th March, 2018 by which an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by CS(OS) 3567/2014 Page 1 of 4 Mr. Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Rawal, Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Govind Raj was dismissed by the learned Joint Registrar. The case of the proposed applicants is that they entered into a collaboration agreement dated 8th July, 2014 with Defendant No.1. Under the said collaboration agreement, it is claimed that the applicants had paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Defendant No.1. Despite the payment having been made, Defendant No.1, did not adhere to the promises made in the collaboration agreement. Accordingly, impleadment is sought in the present suit as the agreement relates to the same property of which partition has been sought in the present case.
4. The suit, in the present case, is for partition filed by Mr. Nagesh Kumar Mehra and Ms. Shammi Sobti against their two brothers, Mr. Ravinder Kumar Mehra and Mr. Rakesh Mehra. All the parties are the children of Late Vidya Prakash Mehra and Mrs. Suhag Rani Mehra. The partition claimed is in respect of property bearing No. G-32, Masjid Moth Residential Scheme, New Delhi. Defendant No.2 - Mr. Rakesh Mehra has already conceded to the prayer for partition made by the Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1, however, is contesting the same on the ground that he has a General Power of Attorney from Mrs. Bharti Singh who was the original owner of the property. In the suit, issues have already been framed on 22nd March, 2018.
5. The submission of the applicants, that they have a right in the property by virtue of the collaboration agreement, has rightly been rejected by the learned Joint Registrar. The contention that the said applicants ought to be impleaded, being based on a collaboration agreement which is completely alien to the cause of action in the present suit, the impleadment was rightly rejected. Any rights or remedies of the applicant in the alleged CS(OS) 3567/2014 Page 2 of 4 collaboration agreement cannot be made subject matter of the present suit. Permitting the same would also result in conflating the issues that arise, as the present suit is for partition between siblings and the applicant is a third party, unrelated to the family, though he claims to have entered into a collaboration agreement with one of the brothers. The said agreement, if it exists, involves only one of the parties in the suit and the same cannot be intertwined with the issues raised in the present suit.
6. The original appeal, therefore, is not liable to be entertained, as there is no error in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The applicants are left to avail their own remedies in accordance with law. CS(OS) 3567/2014 & I.A. 23150/2014 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)
7. Defendant No.1 has produced today the General Power of Attorney dated 6th June, 1983 purportedly executed by Mrs. Bharti Singh. He has also produced the original perpetual lease dated 31st August, 1978 executed by the Delhi Administration in favour of Mrs. Bharti Singh. The same are taken on record and be retained in a sealed cover with the DR (Original).
8. Defendant No.1 has filed the affidavit dated 21st January, 2019 stating that despite his best efforts, he could not trace the address of Mrs. Bharti Singh nor find her whereabouts. As recorded in the order dated 14th July, 2016, it clearly appears that Mrs. Bharti Singh is no longer alive and hence the Power of Attorney which she may have granted in favour of Defendant No.1 is of no avail.
9. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs is permitted to obtain copies of all the original documents. The Plaintiffs to file their affidavits in evidence within four weeks. In the meantime, since the dispute is between siblings, the Court has requested Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate (M:9810126454) to CS(OS) 3567/2014 Page 3 of 4 mediate the disputes. Parties will meet Mr. Anand Yadav in his Chamber No.156, Old Block, Delhi High Court at 1.00 p.m. today.
10. If there is no settlement, evidence be recorded by the Joint Registrar on the next date. The order dated 24th November, 2014 directing the maintenance of status quo in respect of title and possession is confirmed during the pendency of the present suit.
11. I.A. 23150/2014 is disposed of.
12. List the suit before the learned Joint Registrar on 12th March, 2019.
13. List before Court on 15th July, 2019.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 29, 2019 Rekha CS(OS) 3567/2014 Page 4 of 4