Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Sachdeva – Appellant
Versus
Prem Arora – Respondent
F.A.O. (OS) No. 371 of 2015
Decided On : 22.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sajan K. Singh, Advocate.
In cases of inordinate delay and strategic conduct by a party, the court may pass orders shutting out the party from leading evidence. Pending litigation diminishes the value of the property, and attempts to take advantage of this situation cannot be permitted.
Headnote:
Delay - Specific Performance of Agreement - Inordinate delay by plaintiff in leading evidence - Court's reluctance to pass orders shutting out parties from leading evidence - Strategy to delay disposal of suit - Diminishing property value due to pending litigation - Dismissal of appeal
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit in 2011 for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The plaintiff failed to furnish a bank guarantee as directed by the court, and there was inordinate delay in concluding the plaintiff's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff, which seemed to be a strategy to delay the disposal of the suit. The court noted that pending litigation diminishes the value of the property and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Inordinate delay by plaintiff, strategy to delay disposal of suit, impact of pending litigation on property value
Ratio Decidendi: The court is reluctant to pass orders shutting out parties from leading evidence, but in cases of inordinate delay and strategic conduct, the court may be forced to do so. Pending litigation diminishes the value of the property, and attempts to take advantage of this situation cannot be permitted.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. This appeal arises out of order dated 15.04.2015 passed by a learned single judge of this court dismissing O.A. No. 128 of 2015 filed by the appellant. By the O.A. the appellant had impugned the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Joint Registrar closing the right of the appellant/plaintiff to lead evidence.
2. On 09.02.2015, the case was listed for further cross-examination of the PW-1. (The Plaintiff in the suit and appellant herein). The Joint Registrar noted that the PW-1 was not present. The counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that the plaintiff had taken away the file and he was not in contact. The counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that he intended to seek discharge. The Joint Registrar noted from the previous order sheets that PW-1 was not present on previous dates of hearing also and accordingly the plaintiff’s evidence was closed.
3. As is borne out from the impugned order, the Learned counsel for the appellant before the learned single judge in the appeal contended that the appellant did not appear before the joint registrar as he was in a state of shock as his mother had expired on 02nd January 2015.
4. The Learned single judge noted that the counsel for the plaintiff had made a statement that the plaintiff had taken away his file. The single judge noted that the issues were framed on 26th September 2012 and the evidence of the plaintiff was partly recorded on 07th August 2013 and thereafter on one pretext or the other, the statement of PW-1 had not been concluded.
5. The learned single judge formed an opinion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff and it seems to be a part of the strategy to delay the disposal of the suit.
6. Normally a court is reluctant to pass orders shutting out the parties from leading evidence, however on some occasions the facts and conduct of a party force the hands of the court.
7. Present is a suit filed by the Appellant/plaintiff in the year 2011 for specific performance of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the Defendant/Respondent. On 26.09.2012, the court directed that subject to the plaintiff furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 48,61,000/- within four weeks, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to tile and possession of the suit property. The issues in the suit were also framed on the said date.
8. On 23.11.2012, as the plaintiff had failed to file the list of witnesses or the evidence by way of affidavit, an opportunity was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The Joint Registrar also noted that the bank guarantee was also not furnished. Counsel or the plaintiff submitted that the same would be furnished with an appropriate application.
9. The Plaintiff who entered the witness box as PW-1 was partly cross-examined on 07.08.2013. The plaintiff was directed to produce his income tax returns and statement of his bank account with effect from 2009. As noted by the learned single judge in the impugned order, thereafter on one pretext or the other the statement of PW-1 has not been concluded. PW-1 was not present on 26.05.2014, 03.11.2014 and on 09.02.2015.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has admitted that the bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 48,61,000/- which was a pre-condition imposed for grant of a status quo order on 26.09.2012 was not furnished within the stipulated time and even till date has not been furnished.
11. We concur with the finding returned by the learned single judge that there is inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff and it seems a part of the strategy to delay the disposal of the suit. Mere pendency of litigation in respect of a property diminishes its value, even though there may not be an interim order. A pending litigation in respect of a property is a deterrent on prospective purchasers. Even if there were no interim order, lis pendens by itself would create a cloud over the title in the minds of the prospective purchasers and would dimin
