Mukesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajneesh Gupta & Ors

order.

¶12The judgments and decrees of dismissal of the suits thus cannot be sustained and are set aside and the suits bearing CS No.12/2016 and CS No.74/2015 dismissed on 13th January, 2016 by the Court of ADJ-II (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi are remanded for decision in accordance with law.

¶13It is made clear that Mr. Vinay Gupta aforesaid who was impleaded as a respondent to these appeals would also be impleaded as a defendant in the suits and the learned ADJ would, on remand, proceed to issue notice to the defendants already impleaded in the suits as well as to the said Mr. Vinay Gupta.

¶14The appellant to appear before ADJ-II (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 1st June, 2016.

¶15The Trial Court file requisitioned in this Court be returned forthwith to the Trial Court.

No costs.

Decree sheets be prepared. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MAY 05, 2016/'bs/gsr'..

P.S. A copy of the impugned judgments and decrees along with copy of this order be placed before the Committee of the Inspecting Judges of the Learned Additional District Judge.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th May, 2016 + RFA 76/2016 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. S.K. Rout and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advs. Versus RAJNEESH GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. AND + RFA 79/2016 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. S.K. Rout and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advs. Versus RAJNEESH GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. On 15th February, 2016, when these appeals came up first before this Court, inter alia the following order was passed: "1. The two appeals impugn the dismissal at the threshold/without trial of two separate suits filed by the appellant for specific performance of two separate Agreements for sale of ground floor and mezzanine floor of a property. The respondents being defendants to the suits did not oppose the suit. 2. However one Mr. Vinay Gupta filed an application for impleadment in the suits stating (a) that he/his predecessor had filed a suit for partition of several properties including the property subject matter of the said Agreements to Sell against the respondents and the said suit was pending as CS(OS) No.2365/1986 of this Court and there was an interim stay therein against the respondents from dealing with the property; (b) however the said suit was dismissed in default on 13th November, 2014 and an application for restoration was filed on 18th November, 2014 and vide order dated 8th December, 2014 the interim orders were again passed. It was the contention of the said Mr. Vinay Gupta that the Agreements to Sell by the respondents in favour of the appellant were in violation of the injunction order in the suit pending in this Court. 3. The learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the very same day rather than dealing with the applications for impleadment, dismissed the suits holding, (i) that the parties hereto were guilty of suppressing material facts; (ii) that the suits were not maintainable in view of the interim order in the suit in the High Court; (iii) that two separate suits were not maintainable and had been filed to create pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned ADJ and which otherwise has no jurisdiction as per the value of the property in accordance with the circle rates and Section 12 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015; and (iv) that the suits were collusive. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the Agreements to Sell of which specific performance was claimed are dated 28th November, 2014 i.e. of a date on which there was no interim order against the sale of the property. 5. Prima facie it appears that even if the suits were collusive, the other reasons for dismissal thereof are not correct. As aforesaid, the Agreements to Sell are stated to be of a date when there was no interim order in force. Moreover the suits for specific performance are required to be valued as per the consideration disclosed in the Agreement to Sell and not as per the valuation of the property as per the circle rates. It also appears that Commercial Courts Act would not be applicable. It also appears that it is for this Court to, in the suit pending before it, determine and deal with violation if any of interim order therein and the learned ADJ could not have for the said reason dismissed the suits. 6. Issue notice to the respondents by all modes including dasti, returnable on 23rd March, 2016. 7. I am also of the opinion that the aforesaid Mr. Vinay Gupta is an appropriate party to the appeal. 8. Though the senior counsel for the appellant states that Mr. Vinay Gupta is not a necessary or appropriate party in the suit for specific performance but still since he had filed an application for impleadment in the suit and though without allowing the same the learned ADJ has acted on the application, it is deemed appropriate to hear him at the time of this appeal at least. 9. A