An unsigned document may raise doubts about its authenticity and binding effect, and the question of whether it constitutes a concluded contract can only be decided after evidence is led by the parties.

CS(OS) 3084/2015 Page 1 of 9

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 15.12.2023

+

CS(OS) 3084/2015

MRS SUNITA SINGH

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.Suhail Sehgal & Mr.Prashant

Drolia, Advs.

versus

MR. SHREE PRAKASH SINGH

..... Defendant

Through:

Mr.Sanjeev Dubey, Sr. Adv. with

Mr.Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Ms.Shreya Shree Singh,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

I.A. 12019/2018 (leave to defend)

1.

This is an application under Order XXXVII Rule (3)(5) of the Code of

Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the defendant seeking leave to defend the

present suit.

2.

Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief

factual matrix as may be necessary for adjudication of the present

application may be noted.

3.

The plaintiff, who is the sister of the defendant, has filed the present

suit under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking recovery a sum of Rs.3

crores alongwith interest @18% p.a. on the basis of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) dated 02.10.2012 entered into between the parties. It

is the claim of the plaintiff that she and the defendant along with their

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:18.12.2023

18:07:37

Signature Not Verified

CS(OS) 3084/2015 Page 2 of 9

mother and other siblings, including step sisters and step brothers, are

entitled to 1/10^th share each in the estate of late Sh. Biswanath Singh, i.e the

father of the parties. It is the plaintiff’s case that after the death of their

father, the defendant has been running the businesses as also managing the

estate of their late father exclusively and it is only after repeated requests of

the plaintiff that the defendant on 02.10.2012 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.

3.26 crores to the plaintiff towards her part shares in the profits generated

from the estate of late Sh.Biswanath Singh.

4.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that after entering into the

aforesaid MoU, the intention of the defendant became dishonest and he,

through his wife, got a false and frivolous complaint lodged with the police

station PS Susant Lok, Gurugram alleging therein that he was coerced to

sign the MoU, this complaint was found to be baseless and consequently a

closure report was filed after investigation, which was duly accepted by the

learned Judicial Magistrate. It is therefore claimed by the plaintiff that even

though the correctness of the MoU now stands established, the defendant

has still failed to pay the agreed amount, compelling her to institute the

present suit on the basis of this written contract. After summons in the suit

were issued on 12.10.2015, the defendant entered appearance on 16.03.2016

and filed the present application seeking leave to defend.

5.

In support of the application, learned senior counsel for the defendant

has made three primary submissions. The first and foremost being that the

document on which the plaintiff is relying is not an original document as the

original signed MoU is in possession of the defendant and will be duly

proved if granted an opportunity to lead evidence. It is therefore contended

that the present suit, which has been filed without the original MoU, is not

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:18.12.2023

18:07:37

Signature Not Verified

CS(OS) 3084/2015 Page 3 of 9

maintainable. In support of his plea that unless the original documents are

placed on record, a suit under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) cannot lie, learned

senior counsel for the defendant seeks to place reliance on the decision of

the Apex Court in Neebha Kapoor Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala and Ors.

(2008) 3 SCC 700 and a decision of this Court in Goyal MG Gases Ltd. Vs.

Premium International Finance Ltd. & Ors. 2006 SCC OnLine D