GS Bhatia and Another vs Taran Jeet Kaur

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The impugned judgment is dated 15.02.2012; the application filed by the defendant seeking a prayer to the effect that he should be permitted to pay the amounts with interest to the plaintiff which amounts have been paid by the plaintiff had been declined and rightly so. Record shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.09.2005. In the course of the proceedings and undisputedly a sum of Rs. 12,75,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff; total sale consideration of the disputed property (which was the subject matter of the agreement to sell) was Rs. 16,40,000/-. The suit had initially been instituted in the High Court and in answer to a preliminary issue, the Court had directed the competent Court which was the court of the Additional District Judge to deal with the suit as the High Court did not have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction preliminary. The following order was passed by the High Court on 16.01.2009:-

If the plaintiff files the returned plaint in the Court of the appropriate jurisdiction. It is directed that the file of this suit be also on requisitioned being received from that Court be sent that Court, since proceedings till the framing of issues have already been undertaken. The sale deed aforesaid lying deposited on this file shall then be released to whosoever is found entitled thereto by such Court. The plaintiff shall then also have the benefit of the monies paid to the bank in pursuance to the orders made herein.

The High Court while disposing of the preliminary issue had noted that the sale deed shall be released to the party who so ever is found entitled to by the Court. Averments made in the application u/s 151 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') are largely to the effect that the payment of money by the plaintiff is creating an equity in favour of the plaintiff which he is not entitled as she has not paid the amounts according to the schedule contained in the agreement to sell. In this scenario, the present application filed by the defendant is one more last ditch effort to retrace the same scenario which already stands decided by the order of the High Court on 16.01.2009. At the cost of repetition, this was the subject matter of consideration before the High Court which in its order dated 16.01.2009 has noted as reproduced hereinabove.

In this background, the application filed by the defendant was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and was rightly dismissed with costs. This petition is also nothing else but an effort to prolong the litigation which has already not been allowed to progress. Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court; it is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-