$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 08.10.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 13.11.2025

+ RFA(COMM) 141/2024

HIMMAT SINGH & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmed, Advocate.

versus

ARUP SINHA ROY .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Manish Kohli, Advocate with Respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G E M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 96 and Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, instituted by Mr. Himmat Singh1 and Mr. Ashok Singh2, assails the Judgment and Decree dated 08.12.20233 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi4, in CS(COMM) 325/2021 titled “Arup Sinha Roy v. Himmat Singh & Anr”.

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the suit instituted by Mr. Arup Sinha Roy5 was decreed for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) along with cost and interest @ 9% per annum from 15.12.2020 till realization, holding the Appellants jointly and severally liable.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The necessary facts germane to the institution of the present Appeal are as follows:

a. The Respondent, who was the Plaintiff before the learned Commercial Court, is engaged in the business of real estate consultancy and facilitation of construction and redevelopment projects in South Delhi.

b. Appellant No. 1 and Respondent have been known to each other for decades, and it is stated that in or around March-April 2019, the parties met regarding the redevelopment of a residential property bearing No. N-246, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi6, admeasuring approximately 800 square yards.

c. The Subject Property was jointly owned by the Appellants along with their sister, late Ms. Harveen Kaur, except for a portion of the second floor owned by one Mr. Ravi Srinivasan.

d. Pursuant to discussions and negotiations between the parties, it is stated by the Respondent that the parties came to an understanding and agreement that the Respondent will identify and suggest names of certain suitable builders for the purpose of redevelopment of the Subject Property. In the event that the Appellants engage the builder introduced by the Respondent, the Respondent would be entitled to a commission fee of Rs. 15,00,000/-. In furtherance of the same, in case the Appellants decide to proceed with the builder introduced by the Respondent, the Appellants would not be entitled to deal with the said builder through any other agent or directly, by superceding the Respondent, and in case the same happens, the Appellants would be held in breach and the Respondent would be entitled to his commission-fee from the Appellants.

e. In view thereof, the Respondent introduced several builders to the Appellants, including M/s Spectrum Infratech, M/s Aarcon Developers, and M/s Design Consortia, and convened various meetings between the parties from May to August 2019.

f. Various email correspondences were exchanged between the parties herein, wherein Appellant No. 1 vide email dated 08.07.2019 addressed to Appellant No. 2 and Respondent, communicated the total cost estimate for the project, including the commission fee of the Respondent. Pursuant thereto, various communications took place between the parties.

g. Thereafter, initial negotiations indicated a possibility of a collaboration with M/s Design Consortia, and resultantly, various communications, electronic as well as verbal, ensued between the Respondent and M/s Design Consortia. Communications also ensued between Appellant No. 2 and M/s Design Consortia regarding the Building Bye Laws in place. The Respondent, on 31.07.2019, had taken the Appellants to show a property at Maharani Bagh as well, which was developed by M/s Design Consortia.

h. After these communications and negotiations, the Appellants later disengaged with the Re