Subhash Arora v. M/S Kandhari Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

ORDER %

10.10.2012 LA. No. 13730/2012 (U/O 1 Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC) & CS(OS) No. 1432/2011 By this application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC the plaintiff seeks impleadment of M/s Kangra Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd. as defendant No. 2. Mr. Satvik Varma, counsel appears for the proposed defendant M/s Kangra Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd. and submits that the impleadment of M/s Kangra Valley DevelopersPvt. Ltd. maynotbe necessaryconsideringthe fact thatplaintiff and defendant have reached an amicable settlement. Counsel also submits that in any case, in the light of the said settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant,proposed defendant will not enforce its right based on the agreementto sell dated 28"^ May, 2011 as againstthe plaintiffwith regard to the subject property. Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for the ^ defendantno. 1 submitsthat there are certainobligationsarisingbetween the plaintiff and the proposed defendant in terms of the agreement to sell dated 28^^ May, 2011 and in terms of which defendantwouldrequireto clear the said obligations qua the proposed defendant after the payment of Rs. 7 crores, is made by the plaintiff Counsel also submits that the said agreement to sell would loose its efficacy in the light of the said settlement arrived at between the parties. Counsel thus takes the position that in view of the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant, the impleadment of the proposed defendant in the present case is necessary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek specific performance of the contractbasedon the agreementto sell dated 3'^'^ May, 2010. In the terms 4-of the said agreementto sell the defendanthad agreed to sell the subject propertyin favourofthe plaintifffor atotalsale considerationamountofRs. 24,50,00,000/- and againstthe said sale considerationamountthe plaintiff had alreadypaid an amountofRs. 2 croreson3.5.2010and balanceamoimt of Rs. 22,50,00,000/-was left to be paid by the plaintiff. The partieshave now agreed that the entire balance amount of Rs. 22,50,00,000/-shall be paid by the plaintiffwith fnst payment of Rs. 7 crores on or before ^

25.11.2012and the remainingamountofRs. 15.5 croreson or before 10 December, 2012. The parties further submit that defendant has agreed to depositthe title deeds of the propertywith this Court well before the said date i.e. 25^ November,2012 and the plaintiff,on being satisfiedwith the depositof the title deeds by the defendant,shall directlymake the payment of Rs. 7 crores to the defendant. The balance payment of Rs. 15.5 crores shall be made by the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the sale deed before the Office of the Sub-Registrar and at the same time the defendant shall also hand overpeacefiilvacantpossession ofthe subjectpropertyto the plaintiff Afterthe executionof the sale deed by the defendantin favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff will be entitled to seek release of the title documents depositedby the defendantwith this Court.The partieshave also th v r $ V agreedthat in the event of failureof the plaintiffto pay the said amountas has been agreed upon then the defendant shall be entitled to forfeit the earnest amount of Rs. 2 crores. Counsels appearing for the parties state that they have received full instructions to settle this matter in accordance with the aforesaid terms. Counsels further submit that none of the parties shall deviate from the terns of the said settlement and the same shall be fully binding on all the parties. Suit filed by the plaintiff is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above settlement. Half of the Court fee amount is now refimded back to the plaintiff in tenns of Section 16A of the Court Fee Act in the light of the said out of Court settlement arrived at between the parties. OCTOBER 10,2012 rkr KAILASH GAMBHIR, J k), die

$-13 * IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 1432/2011 SUBHASH ARORA Plaintiff Through Mr. Mohit Chaudhaiy with Mi". Aritra Das, Advs. versus M/S KANDHARI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Defendant Through Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. for D-1. Mr. Satvik Varma, Adv. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR