Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2480
High Court of Delhi
G.P. MITTAL, J.
Sunil Gupta & Another
Versus
Vijay Sharma
CS (OS). No. 118 of 2011 & EX. P. No. 240 of 2013
Decided On: 24-11-2014
For the Appearing Parties:Bhuvanesh Sehgal, With Anubhav Bhasin, Manish Miglani, for Third Party Objector, Rajat Aneja, With Rashmi Verma, Advocates.
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to dismiss objections and impose costs when presented with suspicious documents indicative of criminal intent.
Headnote:
O. XXI Rules 59, 91 & 92 CPC - Specific Performance - S-381, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi - [CS (OS) No. 118/ 2011, EA (OS) No. 288/ 2014, Ex. P. 240/ 2013]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the sale of a property and the execution of a decree for specific performance of a contract. The objector claimed to have purchased the property and objected to the execution of the decree against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the objector's documents suspicious and indicative of criminal intent to cheat and obstruct judicial proceedings. The objections were dismissed with costs imposed on the objector.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the objector's claim to have purchased the property and the execution of the decree against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the objector's documents to be suspicious and indicative of criminal intent, leading to the dismissal of the objections and imposition of costs.
Final Decision: The objections were dismissed with costs imposed on the objector, and the case was renotified for a future date.
G.P. Mittal, J.
IA No. 5652/ 2014 (O. XXI Rules 59, 91 & 92 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 118/ 2011
IA No. 6423/ 2014 (Objections) in CS (OS) No. 118/ 2011, and
EA (OS) No. 288/ 2014 (Objections) in Ex. P. 240/ 2013
1. The three applications in the above stated suit and Execution Petition are taken up for disposal together as a common question of law and fact is involved in all the three applications moved by the applicant/ objector.
2. CS (OS) No. 171/2010 titled Harjinder Pal Singh vs. Vijay Sharma, which led to the filing of the Execution Petition No. 240/ 2013 as the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 29.05.2009 in respect of sale of lower ground floor of property no. S-381, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi, was decreed in favour of the decree holder and against the judgment debtor Vijay Sharma on 27.08.2013.
3. EA (OS) No. 288/ 2014 (under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC) has been filed by the applicant/objector (his name is not known as the name has not been disclosed either in the title of the objections or at the end of the objection while putting signatures through the Power of Attorney Vineet Narang or anywhere else in the body of the objection) with the plea that the objector came to know from the website of this Court that a decree in respect of the suit property purchased by the objector from the judgment debtor has already been passed in favour of the decree holder on 27.08.2013 and the decree holder has taken steps for execution of the decree. According to the objector, on 16.04.2009, the judgment debtor had agreed to sell the property, subject matter of the execution and had accepted a token money of Rs.11,000/-. The suit property, as described earlier, was to be sold for a total consideration of Rs.25,16,000/-. A sum of Rs.15 lacs was paid at the time of executing the second Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2009 and the balance sum of Rs.10,16,000/-was to be paid at the time of execution of the Sale Deed. It is averred that the Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2009 was lying under objections with the Sub-Registrar V, New Delhi and the same could be registered and delivered to the objector only on 18.05.2010. In the meanwhile, on 19.11.2009, the judgment debtor had approached the objector for release of additional funds and consequently, another sum of Rs.9,16,000/-in cash towards balance sale consideration was paid on 19.11.2009 and actual and physical possession of the suit property (except one small room and one toilet) was delivered to the objector at that time. According to the objections, it was agreed between the parties, that is objector and the judgment debtor that the Sale Deed would be executed by the judgment debtor in favour of the objector soon after the registration of the Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2009.
4. It is urged that the judgment debtor is under the legal obligation to complete the sale transaction and the decree holder who claimed specific performance on the basis of some Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.2009 cannot have precedence over the right of the objector. Thus, sum and substance of the objections is that the decree as passed against the judgment debtor cannot be executed against the objector.
5. The photocopies of the Agreement dated 16.04.2009 through which sum of Rs.11,000/-in cash was allegedly paid by the objector to the judgment debtor, photocopies of the Agreement purported to be dated 06.07.2009 registered on 15.05.2010, photocopies of the receipt dated 06.07.2009 for Rs.15 lacs, photocopies of the possession letter dated 06.07.2009 and subsequent Agreement to Sell and receipt dated 19.11.2009 have been placed on record by the objector.
6. The objections have been opposed by the decree holder by way of filing a written reply. In the reply, it has been stated that filing of the objections in the Execution Petition tantamounts to a bold fraud committed upon this Court. The judgment debtor had in fact entered into an Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 29.05.2009. A sale con
