Amarjeet Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MARCH 11, 2014 gsr/pp

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th March, 2014 + RFA 184/2013 & CMs No.6157/2013(for stay) & 6158/2013 (for condonation of 99 days delay in filing the appeal) AMARJEET KAUR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Megha Gaur and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Pallav Saxena and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advs for R-2. Mr. Sumit Bansal and Ms. Richa Oberoi, Advs. for SCB. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 25th August, 2012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-04,South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi of dismissal in limine, as barred by time, suit No. 354/2012 filed by the appellant/plaintiff, consequent to the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of 99 days delay in filing thereof. 2. Notice only of the application for condonation of delay was issued to the respondents/defendants. Reply to the application has however been filed by the respondent/defendant No.2 Ms. Neelima Begeria. Though in response to the notice, the respondent/defendant No.3 Mr. B.S. Gill had appeared in person on 23rd August, 2013 and accepted notice also on behalf of respondent/defendant no.4 Mr. Mohanjeet Singh and respondent/defendant No.5 Ms. Gurjeet Kaur who are his brothers and sister respectively but subsequently none appeared for the respondents/defendants No. 3 to 5. On the statement of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the copies of the entire Trial Court record had been placed on record, the Trial Court record was not requisitioned. During the hearing on the application for condonation of delay on 28th October, 2013, the appearing counsels were asked to, on the next date of hearing, come prepared with the merits of the appeal also. The senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the counsel for the respondent/defendant No.2 Ms. Neelima Bageria have been heard. 3. The appellant/plaintiff, on 18th August, 2012 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading : (i) that Shri Ajit Singh husband of the appellant/plaintiff and the father of the respondents/defendants No. 3 to 5 was the owner of property No. C-4, Westend Colony, New Delhi vide Perpetual Sub-Lease dated 15th October, 1966 of the land thereunder in his favour; (ii) that the said Shri Ajit Singh vide Agreement to Sell dated 10th December, 1986 agreed to sell the said property to respondent/defendant No.2 Ms. Neelima Bageria for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-, out of which only Rs. 9,00,000/- was paid and the respondent /defendant No.2 defaulted in making payment of balance sale consideration up to the agreed time of 10th June, 1987; (iii) that upon the failure of the respondent/defendant No.2 to pay the balance sale consideration on or before the last date agreed therefor, she forfeited the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- already paid to the said Sh. Ajit Singh; (iv) that on request of the respondent/defendant No.2, Sh. Ajit Singh had also executed certain documents such as GPA, SPA, another Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipts etc, separately from the Agreement to Sell dated 10th December, 1986; (v) that it was specifically mentioned in the Agreement to Sell dated 10th December, 1986 that the said documents i.e., GPA, SPA, another Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipts etc shall not confer any right to the respondent/defendant No.2 in the property and shall not be used by her for any purpose other than of obtaining a loan; (vi) that since the respondent /defendant No.2 failed to pay the balance sale consideration, the respondent/defendant No.2 was not left with any right in the property in any manner and the said Sh.