The court emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements and considered the merits of the defendants' contentions in granting conditional leave to defend.

1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit.

2. The accompanying suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,02,65,740/- jointly and severally against the defendant. As per the plaint the defendant companies jointly entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 6.3.2011 with Dr. Jawahar Lal Chakravarthy in respect of property No.38/61 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi comprising of plot measuring 666.66 sq.yds with superstructure for a total consideration of Rs.28/- crores. By 15.6.2011 the defendants had paid to the vendors, namely, Dr. Jawahar Lal Chakravarthy Rs.12/- crores. At that stage, the defendants entered into an Agreement with the plaintiff on 18.6.2011. Thedefendants agreed to further sell to the plaintiff half undivided portion of the said property for a consideration of Rs.14 crores. Plaintiff paid to the defendants an advance of Rs.6 crores at that time.

3. Subsequently, it transpired that the vendors did not honour their commitment. The defendants filed a civil suit for specific performance of the Agreement dated 6.3.2011 in this Court being CS(OS)1878/2011. At that time it is stated that certain interim orders were passed by the Court whereby the defendants were to deposit a sum of Rs.16 crores in the Court in order to make up the total consideration of Rs.28/- crores. The plaintiffs and defendants entered into another agreement dated 25.8.2011 whereby the plaintiff was obliged to pay half portion of the total consideration of the property, his share being Rs.14/- crores. As the plaintiff had already paid Rs.6 crores, he paid another sum of Rs.8 crores to the defendant. Pursuant to the payment by the plaintiff, defendant deposited Rs.16 crores in Court.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiff learnt that the defendants had agreed to compromise the suit with the vendors without any alleged loss or gain accruing to them by the refund of the said sum of Rs.12 crores received by the vendors from the defendant and a refund of Rs.16 crores with accumulated interest which was lying deposited in this Court. The plaintiffs on learning about the settlement between the vendors and the defendants, moved an intervention application in the said suit filed by the defendants against the vendors. Later on the plaintiffs withdrew the application and the suit was settled by the defendants. Plaintiffs have now filed the present suit. The basis for claiming Rs.22,02,65,740/-is on account of refund of Rs.6 crores paid pursuant to the first Agreement dated 18.6.2011, Rs.8 crores paid pursuant to the second agreement dated 25.8.2011 and Rs. 6 crores in terms of the stipulations in the Agreement dated 18.6.2011 which stipulated that in case the defendant failed to transfer half portion of the property in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of double of the amount received by the defendant i.e. double of Rs.6 crores paid pursuant to agreement dated 18.06.2011.

5. In addition, a sum of Rs. 2,02,65,740/- was claimed on account of the interest received by the defendants with the money deposited in Court. The defendants had received about Rs.2,30,00,000/- as interest on the sum of Rs.16 crores that was deposited in Court. The plaintiff claims that out of the 16 crores deposited in Court Rs.14 crores was the sum paid by the plaintiffs. Hence, it is urged that from the interest of approximately Rs.2.30 crores received, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest in the same proportion i.e. 14/16.

6. The defendants have filed the leave to defend application. In the said leave to defend application the defendants have taken the following defence:-

(i) It is urged that the plaint is liable to be dismissed on account of non verification of the plaint. The plaintiff has signed the plaint but has not verified the same as per the requirement of Order VI Rule 15 CPC. Reliance is placed on Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr, 2006 1 SCC 75 and Civco