Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajesh Kumar Keshri vs Harpal Singh & Ors on 28 January, 2022
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Asha Menon
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 48/2022
RAJESH KUMAR KESHRI ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rajat Bhalla, Ms. Riya Gulati and Mr.
Anish Dewan, Advs.
Versus
HARPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Nalin Talwar, Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Ms.
Prerna Kohli, Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria,
Mr. Vishnu Anand and Mr. Naman
Anand, Advs. for D-1,3&4.
Mr. Harsh Sethi, Adv. for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 28.01.2022 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] I.A. 1499/2022 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 48/2022 & I.A. 1498/2022 (of plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC for interim injunction)
3. The plaint be registered as a suit.
4. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance and permanent injunction.
5. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to the CS(OS) 48/2022 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.01.2022 22:42:04 defendants.
6. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Sethi, Advocate accept summons and notice in the application on behalf of the defendants No.1,3&4 and defendant No.2 respectively and seek time to file written statement/reply. The same be filed within four weeks with advance copy to the counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff may file rejoinder/replication thereto within four weeks thereafter.
7. The defendants shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
8. The replication(s) shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendants, failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record.
9. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the time-lines.
10. At this stage, Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that till the next date of hearing status-quo may be maintained with respect to the Second Floor of property No.B-10, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-110021 (hereinafter referred to 'suit property'), in respect of which the plaintiff states to have entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 28th May, 2020 with the defendant No.2 in whose favour the other defendants had executed a Power of Attorney. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the consideration agreed to was of Rs.11,00,00,000/-, of which a sum of more than Rs.9,00,00,000/- has already been paid. The learned senior counsel also submits that a balance of about Rs.1,53,90,430/- remains and which the plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit in this court, as the CS(OS) 48/2022 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.01.2022 22:42:04 entire transaction has been stalled on account of some dispute between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2.
11. Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the defendants No.1,3&4 submits that the transaction on the basis of which the plaintiff is seeking to assert rights in respect of the Second Floor of the suit property are documents that raise suspicion on account of the fact that the stamp papers have been purchased on 14 th March, 2020 by the defendant No.2 without giving the description of the property, the purchaser and the consideration and the document viz. Agreement to Sell has been prepared subsequently to the detriment of the defendant No.1. The learned senior counsel submits that the defendant No.1 had cancelled the Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.2 by means of a registered document dated 11th June, 2020 and thereafter a public notice had been issued on 30th June, 2020 cancelling the Joint Development Agreement on the basis of which the defendant No.2 had to construct the suit property and would have claimed a right to the second floor. It is further submitted that the public notice did not elicit any response from the plaintiff. Had the agreement as claimed to have been entered on 28 th May, 2020, was actually so the plaintiff would have immediately raised a claim with the defendant No.1. It is also submitted that in September, 2020 when the defendants No.1,3&4 on the one side and defendant No.2 on the other side had worked out a settlement, there was no mention of this Agreement dated 28th May, 2020. It was only subsequent to the third public notice dated 18th January, 2022 that the plaintiff has come forward to assert rights. The learned senior counsel seeks an opportunity to place on record the documents in this regard which are stated to have already been filed CS(OS) 48/2022 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.01.2022 22:42:04 yesterday. The learned senior counsel opposes grant of any interim order of status-quo.
12. Mr. Harsh Sethi, learned counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the defendant No.2 submits that the Collaboration Agreement is a non-terminable agreement and the defendant No.2 is a contractor who had been responsible for constructing the building and had invested about Rs.8,00,00,000/- in the construction and it was on account of some alleged delay in completion that the defendant No.1 was now seeking to put an end to the agreement. It is submitted that the rights to the second floor belonged to the defendant No.2 on payment of Rs.50,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 and half of which i.e. Rs.25,00,000/- has already been paid. Mr. Harsh Sethi, learned counsel for the defendant No.2 further submits that they have justified reasons which intervened in delaying the completion of the project and seeks an opportunity to place all these facts on record.
13. After hearing the submissions of both sides, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, the parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property i.e. Second Floor of property No.B-10, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-110021, as the rival claims raise serious issues that require consideration. There are rights that have been mutually claimed and the interim directions are therefore necessitated.
14. In the meantime, the plaintiff is directed to deposit with the Registrar General of this court a sum of Rs.1,53,90,430/- within a week, which will be kept in the form of an FDR initially for a period of six months, to be automatically renewed till further orders.
15. As all learned senior counsel/counsel are agreeable to the suggestion of this Court that the parties ought to work out an amicable settlement, the CS(OS) 48/2022 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.01.2022 22:42:04 parties are referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
16. The parties are directed to appear before the Secretary, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre through physically or through video conferencing on 2nd February, 2022 at 3.00 PM for assignment of a Mediator.
17. List before the court on 30th March, 2022 for reporting settlement, if any.
18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
ASHA MENON, J.
JANUARY 28, 2022 'bs' CS(OS) 48/2022 Page 5 of 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.01.2022 22:42:04