CM(M) 490/2022

Page 1 of 10

$~79(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM (M) 490/2022 & CM No. 25113/2022, CM No. 25114/2022

KRISHAN KAKKAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Aman

Usman

and

Ms.Suman Arora, Advs.

versus

KIRAN CHANDER

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Sanjeev

Sahay

and

Mr.Shashit Pratap Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

1.

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

assails orders dated 8

J U D G M E N T(O R A L)

%

25.05.2022

th July, 2021 and 6th

May, 2022, passed by the

learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS 412/2021

(Kiran Chander v. Krishan Kakkar).

2.

The order dated 8^th July, 2021 rejects an application filed by the

petitioner, as the defendant in CS 412/2021, seeking dismissal of the

suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(CPC). Towards the conclusion of the impugned order dated 8^th July,

2021, the learned ADJ directes the respondent (as the plaintiff in CS

412/2021) to file two documents. The subsequent order dated 6^th

May, 2022, passed by the learned ADJ, which constitutes the second

order under challenge in these proceedings, disposes of an application,

filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a

2022:DHC:2071

CM(M) 490/2022

Page 2 of 10

direction to the respondent-plaintiff to comply with the order dated 8^th

July, 2021 “in its true spirit” and, accordingly, to extend the time

available with the petitioner to file written statement. The learned

ADJ has, vide the second impugned order dated 6^th May, 2022, held

that the respondent had complied with the directions contained in the

first impugned order dated 8^th July, 2021 regarding filing of

documents, and has extended the time available with the petitioner to

file written statement in the suit by a period of four weeks from 6^th

May, 2022.

3.

CS 412/2021 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner,

alleging that, having purchased 500 sq. ft. of land from the respondent

vide sale deed dated 30^th July, 2012, and having also executed an

agreement to sell dated 14^th

August, 2012 in respect of an additional

400 sq. ft. of land, the petitioner had paid only part consideration

against the said transactions and that the time available with the

petitioner to pay the balance consideration had expired. The suit,

therefore, sought a decree of possession as well as injunction and

mesne profits, in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

4.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed

an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which stands

dismissed by the first impugned order dated 8^th July, 2021. Mr. Aman

Usman, learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his challenge

qua the impugned order dated 8^th July, 2021, which rejects the said

application, to the findings of the learned ADJ with respect to the plea,

advanced by the petitioner, predicated on Section 53A of the Transfer

2022:DHC:2071

CM(M) 490/2022

Page 3 of 10

of Property Act, 1882. The other allegations, raised in the application

of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 have been given up by Mr.

Usman in Court.

5.

The submissions in the application under Order VII Rule 11,

dealing with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, read thus:

“11. UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) ON ACCOUNT

OF APPARENT BAR OF A LAW: That on a meaningful

reading of the plaint, the submission of the Plaintiff emerges

that:

•

the

Plaintiff

contracted

to

transfer

for

consideration (Rs. 1.01 Crore herein) the

immovable property (Suit property herein) by

writing signed by her (by way of the "Said

Agreement" dated 14.08.2012 herein);

•

the Defendant, in part perfonnance of the

contract (the " Said Agreement" herein), took

possession of the property (Suit Property

herein);

•

the Defendant has done some act in furtherance

of the contract (by m