Pawan Kapoor vs Vineet Arora - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4717

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Shri Pawan Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Vineet Arora & Ors. – Respondents
RFA 222 of 2014 & CM APPL. 9468 of 2014
Decided On : 03-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sumit Sarna, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Ahuja, Advocate, for the Respondent-1 along with Respondent-1 in Person.

Headnote:
Additional Documents - Sale Transaction - Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 26.03.2005 - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought permission to produce additional documents to show financial losses due to respondent's inaction in completing a sale transaction. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of earnest money, which was decreed. The appellant challenged the judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's claim for damages was extraneous to the issue in hand and was not raised before the Trial Court. The appellant had previously been allowed to file certain documents and had the opportunity to produce additional evidence during the trial. The court dismissed the application for additional documents.
Issues: Permission to produce additional documents, claim for damages, and application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court may permit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of right. Fresh documents cannot be allowed solely to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party before the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The application for additional documents was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed. The appeal was listed before the Roster Bench.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

CM APPL. 9468/2014 (under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to produce additional documents)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the appellant seeking permission to produce additional documents.

2. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that he has suffered huge financial losses due to the inaction of the respondent no. 1 in not completing the sale transaction pursuant to Agreement to Sell and Purchase between the appellant and respondent no. 1 herein. Therefore, by way of the present application, fresh documents in that regard are sought to be placed on record.

3. An Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 26.03.2005 was entered between the appellant and respondent no. 1 wherein respondent no. 1 agreed to purchase basement and ground floor without terrace/roof rights of property no. D-6, Ranjit Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110008, for total consideration of Rs.17,50,000/- that was to be paid on or before 23.07.2005. An amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by respondent no. 1/plaintiff towards earnest money.

4. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that the execution of the documents for sale of the property in question was mutually extended by appellant and respondent no. 1 initially till 23.08.2005, which was further extended till 07.09.2005, 22.09.2005, 07.10.2005 and 07.11.2005. However, the respondent no. 1/plaintiff in the suit, showed inability to pay balance consideration. Therefore, appellant sent legal notice dated 05.11.2005 to the respondent no. 1/plaintiff.

5. In response to the legal notice dated 05.11.2005, respondent no.1/plaintiff sent legal notice dated 30.11.2005 thereby confirming the time to execute the sale deed on 05.12.2005.

6. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that the appellant visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on 05.12.2005 and was ready to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no. 1/plaintiff. However, respondent no. 1/plaintiff did not appear before the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed.

7. Subsequently, respondent no. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest, which respondent no. 1 had paid as earnest money towards purchase of the property in question. The said suit of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff was decreed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.03.2014, wherein decree for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum was passed in favour of respondent no. 1/plaintiff. The present appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 18.03.2014 passed in favour of respondent no. 1 herein.

8. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff did not file any suit for specific performance of the agreement and chose to file only suit for recovery. Thus, it is contended that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff had no intention to complete the transaction in terms of Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 26.03.2005.

9. The present application has been filed by the appellant seeking to place on record documents to show that he suffered huge financial losses on account of inability of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- and execute the sale deed.

10. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he was desirous to sell the property in question to respondent no. 1/plaintiff, as he was in need of money. The said money was needed for completion of a Collaboration Agreement dated 15.05.2005, which the appellant had entered into with some third person for development, construction and completion of fresh building on his property bearing no. 25/23, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Since the respondent no. 1 did not purchase the property in question, the appellant was unable to complete the development of the property at East Patel Nagar within the scheduled time under the Collaboration Agreement. Thus, the cost of construction incr