Delhi High Court
Shri Sanjay Puri vs Smt. Priti Suri on 15 September, 2022
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 15th September, 2022
+ CS(OS) 1229/2009
1. SHRI SANJAY PURI
A. SMT. MONA PURI (WIFE)
W/O LATE SH. SANJAY PURI
H.No. 87-A/2,
KRISHNA NAGAR,
NEAR SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI-110029.
B. NIKHIIL PURI (SON)
(MINOR THROUGH SMT. MONA PURI
MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN)
S/O LATE SH. SANJAY PURI,
H.No. 87-A/2,
KRISHNA NAGAR,
NEAR SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI-110029.
..... Plaintiff
Represented by: Ms. Astha Tyagi & Ms. Diksha
Narula, Advocates.
1. SMT. PRITI SURI
W/O SH. BRIJ PURI
R/O 8A, CHEMEN DU JORAN
1260, NYON,
SWITZERLAND
2. SMT. SALINA TIMKI SINGH
D/O BRIG. RAJENDRA SINGH
R/O 701/702, SEAWORLD,
BANDRA (WEST),
MUMBAI
CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 1 of 17
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808
3. SH. GURVIR INDER SINGH
S/O BRIG. RAJENDRA SINGH
R/O B-21, WEST END,
DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE EXT.,
NEW DELHI-110021
4. SH. JUGVIR INDER SINGH
S/O BRIG. RAJENDRA SINGH
R/O B-21, WEST END,
DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE EXT.,
NEW DELHI-110021 ..... Defendants
Represented by: Mr. Ajit Dayal, Ms. Meenakshi
Joshi & Mr. Awijit Paliwal,
Advocates for D-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. (ORAL)
I.A. 10547/2022 (U/S 151 of CPC, 1908 on behalf of D-1 & 2)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 seeking setting aside the Judgement/Decree dated 04th February, 2020 on the ground of fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts by the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of original plaintiff-Sanjay Puri.
2. It is submitted in the application that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 inherited the Property bearing No. B-21, Ground Floor, Westend Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi-110057 and became the owners of the Suit property through Court Order/Decree dated 22nd October, 2018. Defendant No. 1 is currently residing in Switzerland and the defendant No. 2 is residing in CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 2 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 Mumbai.
3. It is stated that the original plaintiff-Sanjay Puri had filed Suit for Specific Performance on the basis of an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 12th January, 2006 against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and had also arrayed defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as pro forma parties. Shri Sanjay Puri expired in the year 2015 and his wife-Mona Puri and son-Nikhil Puri were impleaded as the plaintiffs.
4. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are senior citizens and in order to end the litigation with the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff-Sanjay Puri agreed to a settlement through compromise Decree, whereby they agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- plus interest to the legal heirs of the deceased-Sanjay Puri as has been specifically mentioned and explained in the Judgement dated 04th February, 2020.
5. It is asserted that the Judgement/Decree dated 04th February, 2020 is through a compromise arrived at in the Court and it was presumed and understood by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff-Sanjay Puri that they have entered into this compromise without any concealment of material facts and documents and that there is no iota of fraud involved.
6. It is submitted that one Mr. Virendra Sahlot had tried to intervene in the present Suit a number of times on the ground that he had an interest in the Suit property but ultimately all the applications filed by him were dismissed. Consequently, Mr. Virendra Sahlot preferred a separate Suit bearing No. 66/2021 titled Virender Sahlot vs. Priti Suri & Ors. against the defendants/applicant herein as well as the plaintiffs herein.
7. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the plaintiffs started receiving payment in terms of the Decree dated 04th February, 2020 and CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 3 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 ultimately, an Execution Petition bearing No. 70/2020 has been filed against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which is still pending. It is stated that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an Agreement for Sale with M/s. Munjaal Botique Homes Private Limited through its Director, Shri Sanjeev Munjaal for their 50% share in the Suit property. The payments were being made to the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by M/s. Munjaal Botique Homes Private Limited in lieu of MoU dated 28th August, 2019 with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and further sums are also being paid as per the undertaking dated 19th February, 2021 filed before this Court by M/s. Munajaal Botique Homes Private Limited as well as in lieu of received Agreements dated 26th November, 2021 and 27th January, 2022 and a total sum of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- has already been paid and duly acknowledged by the plaintiffs herein and these facts have been recorded in the Execution Petition bearing No. 70/2020.
8. It is asserted that a Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 66/2021 has been filed Mr. Virendra Sahlot by falsely implicating the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have already filed their Written Statement under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 which is pending consideration. It is asserted that the said Suit has been filed on the basis of the alleged MoU dated 12th January, 2006 on which the plaintiffs had sued the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the present Suit.
9. It is submitted that now it has come to the knowledge of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the material facts had been concealed from this Court and a consent Decree dated 04th February, 2020 has been obtained fraudulently in this Suit since they had received hefty amount of money from Mr. Virendra Sahlot and had concealed this fact from this Court. It is claimed that a Decree obtained by fraud is nullity in the eyes of law. The plaintiffs have CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 4 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 since concealed the material facts, information and documents which never formed part of the court record and have played a fraud on this Court and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been cheated by the plaintiffs since they acceded to the consent Order dated 04th February, 2020. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have become aware of various documents purportedly executed between Mr. Virendra Sahlot and the plaintiffs only when the Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 66/2021 has been filed against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs.
10. Moreover, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th April, 2015 executed by Late Shri Sanjay Puri, the original plaintiff, was never filed by the plaintiffs in the present Suit. Another Agreement purportedly executed on 17th May, 2016 between the plaintiffs and Mr. Virendar Sahlot was also concealed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs purportedly executed Acknowledgement Receipts dated 17th May, 2016 which were also not placed on record. The plaintiffs and Mr. Virendra Sahlot entered into another Document dated 13th November, 2017 which has also not been filed in the present Suit. It is thus asserted that from these new additional documents which have come to the knowledge of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 clearly show that a fraud has been committed and the consent Decree is liable to be set aside.
11. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have further claimed that the plaintiffs have received cash and cheques of various dates in respect of above transactions and two drafts, each of Rs. 25,00,000/- have been filed by Mr. Virendra Sahlot in the present Suit which he issued in favour of Ms. Mona Puri.
12. It is further asserted that as per the MoU dated 27th January, 2022 CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 5 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 exectued between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra, Director of M/s. Munjal Boutique Homes Private Limited and others, a sum of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- has been paid to the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as deducted from their amounts payable to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
13. It is further asserted that Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra has committed a fraud by executing a Sale Deed of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said property, though for the same, a separate action is being taken.
14. Therefore, a prayer has been that the Consent Judgement/Decree dated 04th February, 2020 passed in the present Suit be set aside.
15. Submissions heard.
16. In order to understand the controversy being raised by way of present application, it would be pertinent to refer to the Suit that was filed by deceased-Sanjay Puri which was continued by his wife and daughter on his demise in the year 2015. Shri Sanjay Puri, the original plaintiff had filed a Suit for Specific Performance for directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to execute a registered Sale Deed in respect of Property bearing No. B-21, West End, Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi admeasuring 800 square yards and for delivery of vacant possession on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,00,000/-, in the alternate a Money Decree in the sum of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- (Rs. 2,50,00,000/- towards the refund of the amount paid, Rs. 1,50,00,000/- towards interest @ 18% per annum upto the date of filing of the Suit and Rs. 6,50,00,000/- towards damages) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
17. The present Suit was contested by the defendants who had filed the Written Statement. Negotiations were entered into by the parties for CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 6 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 settlement, however, matter lingered and nothing concrete or fruitful emerged. During the pendency of the Suit, the Application bearing No. I.A. 8213/2012 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, 1908 was filed by Mr. Virendra Sahlot who claimed that the plaintiff had acted on behalf of Mr. Virendra Sahlot in respect of Agreement to Sell dated 12th January, 2006 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. This is evident from the contents of the MoU, part consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- out of which Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash and the remaining amount through cheques were paid which is evident from the fact that the plaintiff did not proceed with the Suit and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Order dated 03rd May, 2013. The plaintiff had, in fact, filed an application for refund of court fee. However, the said application was dismissed vide Order dated 30th September, 2013. Since the applicant-Virendra Sahlot had claimed a specific right and interest in the property in question filed Review Petition No. 543/2013 seeking review of the Order dated 03rd May, 2013 and also permission to proceed with the present Suit. Therefore, the suit was got restored by the applicant-Virendra Sahlot.
18. It was further mentioned in the application that during the pendency of the present Suit, the applicant entered into MoU dated 24th April, 2015, wherein the plaintiff agreed to assign and sell his right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the applicant-Virendra Sahlot. The plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of MoU dated 24th April, 2015, but unfortunately, the plaintiff-Sanjay Puri died on 26th November, 2015. Another Agreement dated 17th May, 2016 was executed between the legal representatives of deceased-Sanjay Puri and they also received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in terms of the MoU dated 17th May, 2016. Another extension CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 7 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 and modification of the Agreement dated 17th May, 2016 was circulated which also recorded entire transaction. The plaintiff acting for and on behalf of the applicant-Virendra Sahlot had a clear understanding that as and when the rights in the property of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were acquired, the same in entirety would be transferred to the applicant-Virendra Sahlot on back-to-back basis. Further, the said application was contested by the plaintiff. The said application was dismissed by observing that the applicant- Virendra Sahlot had no direct interest in the present Suit and his claim is not based on any present rights, but on a future expectation/event based on contingency i.e., if the plaintiff got the property, the right of the applicant-Virendra Sahlot thereafter, would come into existence. The application was in existence and, therefore, the application was considered to be premature and without any merit and was dismissed.
19. It is asserted that a Chamber Appeal was preferred against the said dismissal of impleadment application but the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 09th August, 2019 and the matter was listed for framing of issues. At the time of considering the framing of issues, this Court in the Order dated 03rd February, 2020 noted the arguments on behalf of the Senior Counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which are as under:
"1. The plaintiff, vide plaint dated 9th July, 2009 instituted this suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale by the defendants No.l&2 in favour of the plaintiff of property No. B-21, West End, Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- out of which Rs.2,50,00,000/- stood paid prior to the institution of the suit.
2. The suit is listed today for consideration of IA No.9475/2012 of the defendants No.l&2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and for framing of issues, if any.CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 8 of 17
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808
3. On enquiry, it is stated that defendants No.3&4 are not parties to the agreement to sell of which specific performance is claimed in the suit but were impleaded because were claiming adversely to defendants No.l&2 with respect to title of the property.
4. The senior counsel for the defendants No.l&2 has argued, (i) that the agreement to sell of which specific performance was claimed, as per the plaint, was verbal; (ii) that the plaint also pleads a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12th January, 2006; (iii) that during the pendency of the suit, yet another agreement titled Memorandum of Settlement in writing dated 9"^ April, 2010 was executed between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants No.l&2 on the other hand and whereunder the consideration was increased from that originally agreed of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- to Rs. 18,00,00,000/-;
(iv) that the plaintiff, in IA No.21066/2014 filed under Order IX Rule 9 and under Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC for restoration of the suit, in paragraph 7 admitted the execution of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010; and, (v) that the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs, in reply to IA No.9475/2012, have denied the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010.
5. On the basis of aforesaid, the senior counsel for the defendants No.I&2 has contended that the cause of action for specific performance of the verbal agreement and MoU dated 12"" January, 2006, on which the suit was filed, has disappeared on execution of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010 and the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the plaintiff is in breach of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010 and that is why the suit is still pending.
6. A perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010 filed by the defendants No.l&2 along with IA No.9475/2012 shows that in pursuance thereto, the deceased plaintiff also made additional payment, besides Rs.2,50,00,000/-
already paid, of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-.
CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 9 of 17This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808
7. I have enquired from the senior counsel for the defendants No.l&2,whether defendants No.l&2 are willing to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- admittedly received from the plaintiff.
8. The senior counsel for the defendants No.l&2 has fairly stated that in accordance with law, the defendants No.l&2 will have to.
9. I have next enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, how the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff can possibly deny the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010 admitted by the deceased plaintiff in IA No.21066/2014 duly supported by affidavit of deceased plaintiff and whereunder the deceased plaintiff has also made payment of additional Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. In this context it may be stated that the counsel for the plaintiff has earlier been stating that a total payment of Rs.4,00,00,000/- had been made by the plaintiff to the defendants No.l&2.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff through legal representatives states that subject to the amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- being refunded with interest, the plaintiff will not press the relief of specific performance.
11. The senior counsel for the defendants No.l&2, on the aspect of interest, seeks time to obtain instructions.
12. I may observe that interest in any case is in the discretion of the Court.
13. The costs imposed on 9 August, 2019 have been paid.
14. On request, list tomorrow i.e. 4 February, 2020."
20. Thereafter, the matter was again listed on 04th February, 2020 and the following Order was made which reads as under:
"1. This order is in continuation of order dated 3rd February, 2020.
2. The senior counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2 states (i) that the amount of Rs.2.50 crores was received by the defendants no. 1 and 2 from the deceased plaintiff on 14th CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 10 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 November, 2005; (ii) that the suit was instituted on 9th July, 2009; (iii) that further amount of Rs. 1.50 crores was received by the defendants no. 1 and 2 from the deceased plaintiff on 8th April, 2010; and, (iv) that the suit remained dismissed in default from 3rd May, 2013 to 16th January, 2017. It is stated that the aforesaid facts be kept into consideration while determining the rate of interest and the period for which interest is ordered to be paid. It is yet further stated that the defendants no. 1 and 2 are unable to pay the entire amount immediately and be permitted to pay Rs.50 lakhs within one week and the balance within one year from today, in four equal quarterly instalments.
3. On enquiry, the senior counsel for the defendants no.l and 2 states that if the defendants no. 1 and 2 sell the property before one year, the entire amount shall be paid immediately.
4. The counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff states,
(i) that Rs.1 crore 60 lakhs was paid on 14th November, 2005;
(ii) that the balance Rs.90 lakhs, to make up the total payment of Rs.2.50 crores, was paid on 12th January, 2006; (ill) that the deceased plaintiff has left Mona Purl as his widow and Nikhil Puri as his son as his only natural heirs, the mother of the deceased plaintiff having pre-deceased him, and monies are required for the education of Nikhil Puri.
5. On enquiry, it is stated that the monies be directed to be paid in the joint names of Mona Puri and Nikhil Puri.
6. Counsel also appears for Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and states that Mr. D.P.Baweja, Director of Concord Infotech Pvt.
Ltd. was present in the Court during the hearing yesterday and has informed him of the developments. It is stated that the amount of Rs.l.50 crores paid to the defendants no. 1 and 2 on April, 2010 was paid by the said Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and that Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. had entered into an MOU dated 15th April, 2010 with the deceased plaintiff for acquiring the rights of the deceased plaintiff under the agreement with the defendants no.1 and 2 with respect to the property and have paid a total sum of Rs.7.18 crores to the deceased plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2.
7. The senior counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2, on enquiry CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 11 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 states that the defendants no. 1 and 2 received the demand drafts for Rs.L50 crores from the deceased plaintiff on 8th April, 2010, under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010, and do not know the said Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. or Mr. D.P.Baweja.
8. I have enquired from the counsel for Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd., whether has any writing from the defendants no. 1 and 2.
9. The counsel for Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. has in Court handed over a photocopy of a letter dated 15th April, 2010 written by the deceased plaintiff to the defendants no. 1 and 2, informing the defendants no. 1 and 2 that the deceased plaintiff had nominated his rights in respect of the property under the MOU dated 12th January, 2006 read with Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th April, 2010 in favour of Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and had also signed an MOU dated 15th April, 2010 with Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and the sale be completed in favour of Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd..
10. The said document, for the sake of identification is marked as Mark 'A' in today's date and be tagged to Part I File.
11. The counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff controverts the contentions of the counsel for Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
12. The aforesaid contentions of the counsel for Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. do not disclose any ground for adjournment sought to enable Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. to make any application. Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd., though aware of the present proceedings, as apparent from its conduct including of the presence of its Director, Mr. D.P. Baweja during the hearing yesterday, did not take any steps in this regard and cannot today come in the way of the proceedings as commenced yesterday.
13. As far as the rate of interest and period of interest is concerned, in my view, (i) the question of entitlement to interest prior to institution of the suit on 9th July, 2009 does not arise;
(ii) though the defendants no. 1 and 2 have enjoyed the monies from the date of receipt, but at the same time it cannot also be forgotten that even in the absence of any interim relief CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 12 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 restraining defendants no. 1 and 2 from dealing with the property, mere pendency of a suit for specific performance is a fetter on the right of the owner to deal with the property, inasmuch as the owner is unable, even if desirous, of transacting with the property with a view to fetch market price, for the reason of pendency of a suit for specific performance. Thus the rate of interest has to be a balance of the said factors.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that interest @ 6% per annum from 1^' August, 2009 till the end of 31st March, 2020 would serve the ends of justice; however beyond 31st March, 2020, the rate of interest would stand increased to 9% per annum.
15. A decree is accordingly passed, in favour of Mona Puri and Nikhil Puri, legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff Sanjay Puri, and jointly and severally against the defendants no. 1 and 2 namely Priti Suri and Salina Timki Singh, of recovery of Rs.4 crores with interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.2.50 crores from P' August, 2009 and on Rs.1.50 crores from 1st May, 2010 onwards, till today, and with future interest @ 6% per annum from today till 3P' March, 2020 and @ 9% per annum with effect from 1st April, 2020 till the date of payment.
16. However the defendants no. 1 and 2 are given an opportunity to pay Rs.1 crore on or before 20th March, 2020 and the entire balance amount on or before 3 December, 2020, in four equal instalments beginning from 20th March, 2020. However, if there is default in payment of any of the said instalments, the decree for the entire amount shall become recoverable immediately.
17. It is further provided that if the property No.B-21, West End, Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi is sold before 31st December, 2020, the entire amount shall become payable immediately; and, that the amount under the decree shall be a charge on the property No. B-21, West End, Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi or the share of the defendants no. 1 and 2 therein, as the case may be, till the satisfaction of the entire decretal amount.
CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 13 of 17This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808
18. Decree sheet be drawn up.
19. As far as the arguments of counsel for the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. are concerned. Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. shall be if entitled in law, to take its legal remedies."
21. It is quite evident from the Order dated 04th February, 2020 that the Court considered the pleadings of the parties and found that the Suit was for Specific Performance or in the alternative for recovery of the consideration money which was quantified in the sum of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- out of which Rs. 4,00,00,000/- towards the amount paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants or for execution of Sale Deed. On the instructions received by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, it was stated that while the relief was for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell dated 14th November, 2005 was not being necessitated. It was stated that the Money Decree in the sum of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- may be made. The Court considered the rival contentions of the parties and also considered and on the willingness of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to refund amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- decreed the Suit for refund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and also granted interest @ 6% per annum from 01st August, 2009 till 31st March, 2020 and interest @ 9% for the period beyond 31st March, 2020. A Decree was accordingly directed to be passed allowing the Suit for recovery of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- along with the interest as mentioned above.
22. On 04th February, 2020, the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. had appeared through the counsel and stated that it had entered into MoU dated 15th April, 2010 with the deceased-Sanjay Puri for acquiring the rights of the deceased-Sanjay Puri under the Agreement with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of suit property and had paid a total sum of Rs. 7,18,00,000/- to the deceased-Sanjay Puri and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 14 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 Nos. 1 and 2 had received a Demand Draft for Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from the deceased-Sanjay Puri on 08th April, 2010 under the MoU dated 09th April, 2010 but claimed that they were not aware if the said amount had been paid by the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. or Mr. D.P. Baweja. A copy of the Letter dated 15th April, 2010 written by deceased-Sanjay Puri to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 informing them of having nominated his rights in respect of suit property under MoU dated 12th January, 2006 in favour of the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 09th April, 2010 and had also signed the MoU dated 15th April, 2010 with the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and the sale may be completed in favour of the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. The said document was identified as Mark "A".
23. The Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. had sought adjournment for moving an application but no steps were taken in that regard and no reason was seen for adjourning the matter or for not finally adjudicating the Suit. It is thus evident that the plaintiff with whom an Agreement to Sell dated 14th November, 2005 was executed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was the subject matter of the present Suit. The legal heirs of the deceased-Sanjay Puri gave up their rights for seeking execution of Sale Deed but confined their claim to recovery of the money i.e., Rs. 4,00,00,000/- which had been paid by them to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as part of the sale consideration. The Suit was accordingly decreed and the mode of payment as offered by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was recorded in the final order.
24. From the tone and tenor of the final Judgement dated 03rd February, 2020, it is quite evident that the Suit has been finally adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and on the submissions made by the parties and essentially, it was not a consent Decree as has been asserted. The plaintiffs CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 15 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 may have filed the Application dated 25th August, 2021 seeking refund of court fee which may have been allowed but that in itself cannot be a reason to hold that it was a consent Decree. Furthermore, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of present application has sought reopening of the Decree on the ground of fraud and concealment of facts and documents. However, Mr. Virendra Sahlot in his Application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, 1908 had disclosed his transactions with the deceased-Sanjay Puri in regardto back-to- back basis Agreement for purchase of the suit property from the plaintiff on the Agreement to Sell being fructified as observed in the Order dated 17th December, 2018, dismissing the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, 1908, the Agreement between Mr. Virendra Sahlot and deceased-Sanjay Puri was conjectural and contingent to plaintiff acquiring any right and title in respect of the suit property by virtue of the Agreement to Sell.
25. Various MoUs which Mr. Virendra Sahlot had entered into with the deceased-plaintiff/Sanjay Puri from time to time were all mentioned in his Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, 1908. Like, the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. had entered into an MoU with deceased-Sanjay Puri was also brought on record. It is not a case where various transactions undertaken by the plaintiff were not in the knowledge of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 or that they have come to the knowledge for the first time on filing the Civil Suit bearing No. 66/2021 by Mr. Virendra Sahlot against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs and others. The impugned Judgement/Decree is simpliciter in respect of Agreement to Sell, pursuant to which Rs. 4,00,00,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Whether these amounts were paid for and on behalf of the third parties or there were inter se MoUs between the plaintiff and the defendant CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 16 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003808 Nos. 1 and 2 with the third party was not subject matter of the Suit and was in any case beyond the scope of the present Suit. It had been observed even in the Judgement/Decree 04th February, 2020 that the third parties i.e., the Concord Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was at liberty to pursue its independent remedies in accordance with law.
26. There is no fraud or concealment of facts which has been brought forth in the present case which may entitle the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from getting the Judgement/Decree dated 04th February, 2020 set aside.
27. According, the application is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 S.Sharma CS(OS) 1229/2009 Page 17 of 17 This is a digitally signed Judgement.