*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 09.02.2017

% Decided on: 17.03.2017

+

CS(COMM) 304/2016

VERSATILE COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh,

Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Mr Nishank

Tyagi and Mr Abhishek Iyer,

Advocates

versus

CHIRANJI LAL & ANR

..... Defendants

Through: Mr Sunil Dalal and Mr Ashish

Sharma, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

IA No.23676/2015 (moved by defendants under Order XXXVII Rule 3

(7) CPC r/w S.151 CPC)

1.

The present application of the defendants under Order XXXVII Rule

3 (7) of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) relates to grant of leave to defend the

present suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC

for recovery of a sum of `1,03,54,000/- along with interest at the rate of

18% per annum with effect from 02.11.2013 till actual payment. It is

submitted by the plaintiff that they are dealing in the business of real estate

and were interested in purchasing land in revenue estate of Village Surhera,

2017:DHC:1590

Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi. Defendants approached them in first weeks of

April, 2013 and offered to sell their agricultural land, the detail of which is

as under:

(These properties shall be hereinafter referred to as “suit property”)

It is further contended by the plaintiff that since they wanted to

purchase land in that area, they agreed to purchase the suit property and paid

a token amount of `80,54,000/- (vide Cheque no. 403870 dated 23^rd April

2013 for a sum of `40,27,000/- in favour of defendant no. 1 and another

cheque no. 403871 dated 23^rd April 2013 for `40,27,000/- in favour of

defendant no.2). The defendants accepted the said token amount and

promised to execute agreement to sell the suit property. However, they

started delaying the execution of the agreement to sell. After much

2017:DHC:1590

persuasion, the agreement to sell was executed on 18.07.2013 for total sale

consideration of `3,60,00,000/- per acre and also paid a sum of `11,50,000/-

to both the defendants and thus paid a total sum of `1,03,54,000/- to the

defendants towards the part sale consideration price and that the defendants

had also executed a receipt to this effect. In the agreement to sell, the

defendants had represented that there was no legal impediment in selling the

land. It is submitted that as per clause (1) of the agreement to sell it was

agreed that the plaintiff would pay the balance sale consideration to the

defendants within 90 days from the date of execution of the agreement to

sell i.e. by 18.10.2013 subject to the defendants obtaining No Objection

Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authority 15 days before 18.10.2013.

It is submitted that the defendants, instead of obtaining NOC sent a notice

dated 20.07.2013 alleging that the sale deed was to be executed on

18.07.2013 and that defendants had come to the office of Sub Registrar on

18.07.2013 for execution of the sale deed after obtaining NOC from the

competent authority and that the sale would stand cancelled and the advance

money would stand forfeited if the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale

consideration within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. This

notice was duly replied by the plaintiff on 14.08.2013 whereby the plaintiff

2017:DHC:1590

had denied the contents of the notice and insisted that the balance

consideration amount was payable by plaintiff only on furnishing the NOC

to the defendants 15 days prior to the date of execution of the sale deed with

defendants had failed to furnish. The plaintiff also disputed the contentions

of the defendants in notice dated 20.07.2013 that agreement to sale was

executed on 18.04.2013. The plaintiff further contends that the conduct of

the defendants shows that they were not interested