JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge-03, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in CS SCJ no. 117/20, titled as “Ajay Medi vs. Hemant Mehta” whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) seeking stay of the aforementioned suit. The petitioner aims to challenge the aforesaid order by way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court.

2. The relevant facts culminating into filing of the present petition are that on 03.02.2011, Mrs. Pramila Devi, deceased mother of Mr. Ajay Medi, the petitioner herein entered into an agreement with Mr. Hemant Mehta, Page 2 of 10 the respondent herein to sell a property located at C/4F-9, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) for a total consideration amount of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- to be paid on or before 03.06.2011.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite being fully informed of the terms and conditions as specified and agreed in the agreement, the respondent failed to adhere to them by not making the full payment of the outstanding consideration amount within the stipulated time. Out of the total consideration, the respondent paid only Rs. 80,00,000/- to the petitioner as on date 03.06.2011. Consequently, this constituted a breach of the contract, resulting in the automatic termination of the agreement to sell between the parties.

4. As a result of breach of the terms of the agreement by the respondent, late Mrs. Pramila Devi sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2011 to the respondent and his close friend, Mr. Ajay Babbar terminating the aforesaid agreement and calling upon the respondent to pay a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- in terms of the said agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner acting as a legal representative of his mother, issued a legal notice dated 09.01.2012 reiterating all the details and expressing the intention to deposit the money in the Court.

5. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that both the respondent and Mr. Babbar requested him not to proceed with the deposit as it was their unaccounted money. In the meanwhile, late Mrs. Pramila Devi got the termination of agreement published in Dainik Jagran and sent another legal Page 3 of 10 notice dated 31.10.2012 to reconfirm the termination of the agreement. After the death of late Mrs. Pramila Devi, the respondent refrained from taking his money back from the petitioner. Instead, both the respondent and Mr. Babbar made considerable efforts to persuade the petitioner to enter in a new agreement with them.

6. On 31.01.2018, while residing in the USA, the petitioner received a call from the Janakpuri Police Station, informing him that an FIR bearing no.48/18 has been lodged against him and his family members on behest of the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, on 03.02.2018, the respondent along with Mr. Ajay Babbar and their accomplices unlawfully took adverse possession of a portion of the ground floor of the suit property. Furthermore, they trespassed into the property by cutting the hinges of one of the metallic doors, took possession of the petitioner‟s belongings and installed a new lock on the property in the presence of the police with the intent to claim the aforesaid premises to be in their possession.

7. Subsequently, on 17.02.2018, the respondent filed a suit bearing CS/ ADJ/164/2018 for specific performance, declaration, possession, mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner.

Thereafter, on 27.07.2018, the petitioner filed a suit numbered CS/ADJ/749/2018 against the respondent seeking possession of the property in question under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter