Satish Mohan Agarwal v. Sanjeev Kuamr Arora & Ors

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. NOVEMBER 29, 2023/ss

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 29th November, 2023 + FAO 11/2022 & CM APPL. 1849/2022 SATISH MOHAN AGARWAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Mrs. Rimpy Gupta, Advs. versus SANJEEV KUAMR ARORA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA (ORAL) FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, who was the plaintiff, before the learned Trial Court, preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 19081 assailing the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned ADJ-09, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the plaint has been directed to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the appropriate Court having "pecuniary jurisdiction". 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiff along with respondent Nos. 5 & 6 filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 18108/2016 titled as "Satish Mohan Aggarwal v. Sanjeev Kumar Arora & Ors" claiming that he along with respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in the present appeal viz. 1 CPC (defendant Nos. 5 & 6 in the suit) were co-owners of property bearing Nos. 1595 to 1600 situated at Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, Delhi- 110055 measuring 346 Sqr. Yards (hereinafter referred to as "suit property"). 3. Admittedly, the said property was sold to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 viz. (defendant No. 1 to 4 in the main suit) for a total consideration of Rs.262.50 lakhs. It is the version of the appellant / plaintiff that there was a pre-condition that the suit property would be get vacated from the occupants, and additionally since the property was mortgaged with State Bank of Patiala on account of financial assistance taken by the aforesaid vendors/co-owners, the vendee / buyers shall satisfy the claim of the bank, and accordingly, all six sale deeds were executed in favour of the vendee/respondents no. 1 to 4/defendants no. 1 to 4. 4. In a nutshell, the grievance of the appellant / plaintiff was that the vendee did not honour their part of commitment. The suit was filed by the appellant / plaintiff seeking a prayer that the sale deeds be declared null and void with a consequential relief of seeking possession of the property as also seeking damages. On service of summons for settlement of issues, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Vendee), along with their written statement, also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC raising some preliminary objections. Reply was filed by the appellant / plaintiff and the application was opposed. 5. On consideration of the plaint, and application filed by the respondents/defendants no. 1 to 4, besides the reply filed by the plaintiff/appellant, learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2021. It would be relevant to extract the operative portion of the impugned order which reads as follows:- "I have gone through the plaint, application, its reply, material on record and submissions forwarded by Ld. Counsel for the parties. The prayer sought by the plaintiff is as follows:- (a) Pass a decree of cancellation thereby cancelling the Sale Transaction entered between the parties in respect to the immovable property bearing property NO. 1595 to 1600 situated at Main Bazar Pahar Ganj, New Delhi- 110055 built upon freehold land admeasuring 346 sq.yards., consequentially declaring the Sale Deeds and Rectification Deed executed between the parties as detailed in para no. 6 above as null and void with further consequential reliefs/directions to the parties to reverse/return the benefits/fruits received/enjoyed by the) respective party under the said Sale Transaction including the directions to defendants no. 1 to 4 to hand over the possession of the above property; (b) Pass a decree for recovery in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants no. 1 to 4 for recovery of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and damages; (c) Grant pendent-lite and future interest @18% on above sum of Rs.10 lakhs. (d) Award cost of the suit; and (e) Pass suc