CM(M) 1020/2022

Page 1 of 15

$~55

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1020/2022 & CM APPL. 42135/2022, CM APPL.

42136/2022

RAMESH KUMAR DANG & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

versus

TARUN WADHWA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

Ankur

Mahindro,

Mr.

SHresth

Choudhary

and

Mr.

Soumil

Gonsalves, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E NT (ORAL)

%

27.09.2022

1.

This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

assails order dated 7^th June 2022, passed by the learned Additional

District Judge (“the learned ADJ”) in Civil Suit 11571/2016 (as re-

numbered) (Ramesh Kumar Dang v. Tarun Wahdwa).

2.

By the said order, the learned ADJ has dismissed the application

of the petitioners, as the plaintiffs in the suit, for review of an earlier

order dated 31^st August 2015, passed therein. The order dated 31^st

August 2015 allowed an application of the respondent, as the

defendant in the suit, preferred under Order VII Rule 11¹ of the Code

111. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a)where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b)where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct

the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004066

CM(M) 1020/2022

Page 2 of 15

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in part.

3.

The issue in controversy is limited; ergo, a brief recital of facts

would suffice.

4.

The petitioners, as the plaintiffs in Civil Suit 611571/2016,

sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 5^th February

1990, along with injunctive reliefs.

5.

The prayer clause in the suit read thus:

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice it is therefore most respectfully prayed that

this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to pass a decree

of

Specific

Performance,

Permanent

and

Mandatory

injunction

a)

to direct the defendant to execute sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing

no. 1052/14, Pan Mandi, First Floor, Sadar Bazar,

Delhi -110006 alongwith second floor and roof/terrace

upto sky high as per the agreement dt. 05.02.1990

executed between father/ grandfather of plaintiffs Late

Sh. Laxmi Narain and Late Smt. Krishna Devi, mother

of the defendant, being only legal heir of the late Smt.

Krishna Devi as shown in red colour in the site plain

annexed with this plaint and to receive the remaining

balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiffs.

(c)where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently

stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within

a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d)where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e)where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f)where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite

stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the

plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying

the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to

extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004066

CM(M) 1020/2022

Page 3 of 15

b)

to declare the rent agreements dt. 23.05.1989 in

respect of suit property executed between the late Sh.

Laxmi Narain and Late Smt. Krishna Devi as null and

void after execution of bayana cum agreement to sell

dt. 05.02.1990;

c)

to declare the rent re