Delhi High Court - Orders
Monica Gogia vs M S Rss Estate Llp & Anr on 8 April, 2024
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 202/2024
MONICA GOGIA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Arjun
Syal, Mr. Shreyan Das, Ms. Mehak
Jaggi, Mr. Raghuveer Kapur and Mr.
Randeep Sachdeva, Advocates.
versus
M S RSS ESTATE LLP & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Sunil
Dalal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Ajay
Kohli, Mr. Tarjit Singh, Ms. Dipika
Prasad, Mr. Adit Khurana, Mr.
Shridar Kale, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal,
Mr. Abhiraj Singh and Mr. Navish
Bhati, Advocates for the defendants.
Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Advocate for the
intervenor.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 08.04.2024 I.A. 6601/2024 (under Section 151 CPC for deposit of original agreements to sell both dated 22.01.2024)
1. Application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the two original Agreements to Sell, both dated 22.01.2024.
2. It is submitted that the copies of the aforementioned documents were filed along with the list of documents annexed along with the Plaint. It is further submitted that now the plaintiff wants to place on record the two aforesaid ATS in original.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the defendants had raised an objection though the copies of the two aforesaid documents had been placed on 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 10/04/2024 at 23:51:48 record, but according to him, they were incomplete documents as some pages from were missing. Therefore, plaintiff cannot be allowed to now produce the original Agreements to Sell.
4. Submissions heard.
5. Considering that the copies of these two documents had been filed along with the list of documents annexed with the Plaint, the application is allowed and the two Agreements to Sell in original are permitted to be placed on record.
6. The application is accordingly allowed.
CS(OS) 202/2024, CAV 115/2024, CRL.M.A. 9330/2024, I.A. 5646/2024 (U/O 39 R- 1 & 2), I.A. 5853/2024 (U/O 39 R- 1 & 2), I.A. 5854/2024 (for direction), I.A. 5872/2024 (U/O 39 R- 4), I.A. 6603/2024 (directions to send original agreements to sell both dated 22.01.2024 to the forensic science laboratory, I.A. 6604/2024 (for deposit of original agreements to sell both dated 22.01.2024) & I.A. 6606/2024 (U/O VII RULE 14)
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff was directed to deposit the deficient Court fee within one week vide Order dated 09.03.2024. It is orally submitted that due to the inadvertence of the learned counsel, the same could not be deposited within the given time and now the counsel undertakes to deposit the deficit Court fee today itself.
8. The submission is opposed on behalf of the defendants by submitting that once specific time was given and no subsequent application has been filed for enlargement of time, the Suit is necessarily required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of CPC on account of deficit Court fee.
9. Submissions heard.
10. Though vide order dated 09.03.2024, the plaintiff was directed to make good deficit Court fee within one week, Section 149 (ii) CPC permits the Court to enlarge the time. Order VII Rule 11 (c) of CPC provides that 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 10/04/2024 at 23:51:48 the deficit Court fee is not made good within the time granted by the Court, the Suit may be dismissed.
11. From the conjoint reading of the provisions, it is evident that the Court, before rejecting the Suit on this ground, may give additional time for making good the Court fee.
12. On the oral submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff, which is treated as a prayer for enlargement of time, the plaintiff is permitted to deposit the deficit Court fee within one day.
13. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted and in case the Court fee is not paid, the Suit shall be deemed to be rejected.
14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that he needs one week's time to argue the matter. It is also submitted that some third party, who wants to intervene on the ground that the access road is a private road through which none other has an access, has filed an application for impleadment and time be granted for his application to come on record, this presence is claimed to be necessary to ascertain whether there is any other access to the suit property through another road and if the existing road is private
15. Adjournment sought for arguments on application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC by the plaintiff, which is equally vehemently opposed by the learned Senior Advocate for the defendants who insists that the arguments on his application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC may then be heard first.
16. In view of the submissions made, the matter be listed on 23.04.2024 for arguments on both applications i.e. under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC. In case the plaintiff on 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 10/04/2024 at 23:51:48 any ground seeks an adjournment, the interim stay shall stand vacated.
17. Be listed on 23.04.2024.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J APRIL 8, 2024/A 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 10/04/2024 at 23:51:49