* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 3^rd October, 2024 Pronounced on: 6^th December, 2024 + C.R.P. 203/2024 & CM APPL. 38265/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC)

1. DINESH KUMAR DABAS s/o Sh. Raj Singh R/o Flat No. 41, Swastik Kunj Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110006 ...Petitioner No. 1

2. SMT. NAMITACHOUDHARY w/o Sh. Sandeep Dabas, r/o Khasra No. 35/5, Village Chandpur, Delhi .....Petitioner No.2 Through: Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocate.

versus TILAK RAJ s/o Sh. Jai Pal r/o Village Khanjawala, Delhi-110081 .......Respondent Through: Mr. Jagdev Gulliya, Advocate through VC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

C.R.P. 203/2024

1. The Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ hereinafter) has been filed on behalf Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P.203/2024 Page 1 of 7 of the Petitioners, to challenge the Order dated 28.05.2024 vide which the learned District Judge has dismissed the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC of the Revisionists (Plaintiffs), in Civil Suit bearing CS DJ 713/2019.

2. Briefly stated, the Revisionists had relied upon the admissions in the Written Statement made by the Respondent that it had received Rs.20,00,000/- under the Agreement to Sell (ATS), which has not been honoured. Consequently, the Plaintiffs sought the Recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- paid by him under the Agreement to Sell dated 15.10.2018, to the Respondent/Defendant.

3. The Respondent while admitting the receipt of Rs.20,00,000/-, took a defence in his Written Statement that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part under the Agreement to Sell.

4. In view of the admissions of the Respondent/Defendant in the Written Statement, Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was filed by the Plaintiffs/Revisionists seeking a decree of Rs.20,00,000/-.

5. However, the Application was dismissed by the learned District Judge by observing that whether the Plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of the paid amount or not, can only be decided after conclusion of evidence. Consequently, the Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

7. The Respondent in his Counter Affidavit, has categorically denied all averments made by the Revisionist in the present petition. It is submitted that whether the present case is hit by Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 can only be determined after the completion of trial. It is argued that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P.203/2024 Page 2 of 7 impugned Order is well-reasoned and suffers from no infirmity and no interference with the impugned Order, is warranted.

8. Submissions heard.

9. Admittedly, the Respondent/Defendant was the owner/bhumidar and in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 96/14/5 (0-2), 96/14/6 (0-8) and 96/17 (4-16) total measuring 5 bigha and 6 biswa (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property) in the Revenue Estate of Village Dichaun Kalan, Delhi. The Respondent/Defendant agreed to sell the land to the Plaintiffs/Revisionists and the parties entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 15.10.2018 for a Sale Consideration of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. Rs.20,00,000/- as advance sum were admittedly received by the Respondent/Defendant for which Money Receipt dated 15.10.2018, was also executed.

10. The Plaintiffs claimed that as per the Agreement to Sell, the Contract was to be concluded within five months, from the date of execution of Agreement to Sell. Clause 6 of the Agreement to Sell, provided that the Respondent/Defendant was bound to obtain all permissions such as NOC, Income-Tax, Clearance Certificate etc. and after obtaining the same, he was to inform the Plaintiffs, for execution of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs/Petitioners consequently as per the requirements, signed the Application Form and handed over the documents to the Respondent/Defendant on 15.10.2018 itself. It was asserted that