Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
P.C. Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
B.N. Chakravorty - Respondent
CS(OS) 196 of 2012
Decided On : 30-11-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Headnote
(B) Civil Procedure - The importance of timely action in legal proceedings - The Court must remain vigilant against attempts to delay a trial without adequate justification. (Paras 7, 17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement against the defendant, alleging non-performance despite payment. The defendant's application to amend issues was criticized as belated and lacking substantiation.
Findings of Court:
The court found the application to amend issues lacking merits and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issues included the authenticity of the agreement and the relationship between parties regarding contract rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delay in raising issues hampers justice and emphasized that issues must be properly framed to define the scope of the trial accurately.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amendment of issues under cpc (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of proposed issues (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. factual background of the case (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. cpc rules on framing issues (Para 14) |
| 5. judicial reasoning on misuse of process (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final ruling on dismissal of application (Para 20) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. No.11151/2019-Under Order XIV Rule 5, CPC
1. The instant application has been filed by the Defendant No. 2 under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC') seeking amendment of the issues framed in the captioned civil suit.
2. By way of this application, the Defendant No.2 prays before this Court for the framing of the following as additional issues in the captioned suit:
"a. Whether the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 27.12.2005 between defendant no.1 to 3 in favour of defendant no.4 is a forged document.
b. Whether the signature of defendant no.1, 2 and 3 in the alleged agreement to sell dated 27.12.2005 are forged signature.
c. Whether there is any privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 3."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant No.2 in support of the instant application has submitted that as the Plaintiff claims that Defendants No.1 to 3 have entered into an agreement to sell with Defendant No.4 on 27th December 2005 in favour of the Defendant No. 4 and on the basis of this agreement to sell, the Defendant No.4 has entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff on 16th July 2008 thus the question as to whether such an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 27th December 2005 is a forged document or genuine document becomes necessary.
4. Praying for the dismissal of the instant application, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has submitted that the present application is highly belated as the issues in the captioned suit were framed way back in the year 2016 and whereas, the present application has been filed in the year 2019 and no reason whatsoever has been given for this delay.
5. It is vehemently submitted that such an application is to delay the trial as the evidence of the Plaintiff has already been led and the matter has been kept pending for his cross-examination. It is also argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that there is no material on the record to enable the framing of the proposed issues which is an essential requirement in terms of Order XIV Rule 3 of the CPC.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the captioned suit including the instant application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC.
7. In my opinion, such an application after deep slumber must be dealt with strictly as no doubt procedure is handmaid to justice and it is the duty of the Court to arrive at just conclusions to uphold genuine claims but then it becomes equally important that an indirect attempt to delay the conclusion of trial or rather impede it is not allowed under the garb of vindication of substantive justice.
8. A brief background of the captioned civil suit is necessary for the disposal of the instant application.
9. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant No.4 had purchased a property bearing No. E-929, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `suit property') from the Defendants No. 1 to 3 vide an agreement to sell dated 27th December 2012 and on the strength of this agreement to sell, the Defendant No.4 had sold the suit property to the Plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighteen Lakhs Only) vide an Agreement to Sell dated 16th July 2008. The plaintiff claims to have paid Rs. 55,00,000/- to the Defendant No.4 and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of handing over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property, on or before 31st July 2009.
10. It is the Plaintiff's case that he has been r
