M/S Jagtarni Homes Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Ranaji Ganguly on 12 November, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Jagtarni Homes Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Ranaji Ganguly on 12 November, 2020

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                                                         Signature Not Verified
                                                                                         Digitally Signed By:DINESH
                                                                                         SINGH NAYAL
                                                                                         Signing Date:15.11.2020
                                                                                         11:57:46


                                $~1
                                *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                +                C.R.P. 73/2020 & CM APPL. 28951/2020
                                        M/S JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD.             ..... Petitioner
                                                      Through: Mr. Naresh Gupta, Mr. Ankit Jain and
                                                               Mr. Shantnu Aggarwal, Advocates.
                                                               (M:9810236228 & 9999347367)
                                                      versus

                                        SHRI RANAJI GANGULY                     ..... Respondent
                                                      Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
                                        CORAM:
                                        JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                                                      ORDER

% 12.11.2020

1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.

2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21st October, 2020 by which various applications have been decided by the trial court. The only grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of the decision on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which has been rejected by the Trial Court.

3. The submission of Mr. Ankit Jain, ld. counsel is that the Plaintiff/ Petitioner (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") is the owner of property No. J-1953, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter, "suit property") by registered sale deed dated 27th November, 2019. A suit for possession and other reliefs has been filed by the Plaintiff. The Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, 'Defendant") relies upon an agreement to sell dated 15th September, 2011, the general power of attorney dated 15th November, 2010 and other related documents, none of which are registered. Accordingly, the Defendant does not have any right in law for either retaining possession or Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH C.R.P. 73/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:13.11.2020 17:04 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:15.11.2020 11:57:46 claiming title in the suit property. Ld. counsel thus submits that this is a case for passing of a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, ld. counsel appearing for the Defendant submits that the agreement to sell dates back to 2011 and the Plaintiff's sale deed is executed by fraud. He further submits that the Defendant is in possession of all the original documents of the suit property. Thus, no decree on admissions could be passed and the application is rightly dismissed.

5. After perusing the pleadings, the issues and the impugned order, it is observed that while the Plaintiff may be entitled to argue that the unregistered agreement to sell and power of attorney do not confer any title, the same would not constitute admission for passing of a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. However, the Court has perused the issues which have been framed in the matter and it appears that the following additional issue in respect of the effect of the documents which are executed in favour of the Defendant is required to be framed:

(5A) Whether the agreement to sell dated 15th September, 2011 and the power of attorney dated 15th November, 2010 confer any ownership or title in respect of the suit property in favour of the Defendant? OPD

6. Ld. counsel for the Defendant insists on an issue being framed that the suit property has been mortgaged in favour of the Defendant, however, no plea to that effect has been taken. Mr. Mishra submits that he has filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Such an issue can be framed if the same arises out of the pleadings.

7. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH C.R.P. 73/2020 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:13.11.2020 17:04 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:15.11.2020 11:57:46

Considering the nature of the matter, the Trial Court shall immediately proceed with the trial as the issues have already been framed. The Plaintiff is stated to have filed one affidavit in evidence. The matter is listed for Plaintiff's evidence on 20th January, 2021. The Trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the adjudication of the matter on or before 31st July, 2021.

8. With these observations, the petition and all pending applications are disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

NOVEMBER 12, 2020 dj/T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH C.R.P. 73/2020 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:13.11.2020 17:04

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders