Madhusmita Bora v. Rahul Bhatnagar & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 02, 2017 bs (Corrected and released on 29th December, 2017).

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 2nd November, 2017. + C.R.P. 200/2017 & CM No. 32848/2017 (for stay) MADHUSMITA BORA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Zeba Khair & Mr. Bijoy Kumar Pradhan, Advs. Versus RAHUL BHATNAGAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.A. Khan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 3rd July, 2017 in CS No.55699/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi] of grant to the respondents/defendants of unconditional leave to defend the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXVII of CPC. 2. Notice of the petition was ordered to be issued for 22nd September, 2017 and on the counsel for the respondents/defendants on that date seeking adjournment, the matter was posted to today for hearing. 3. Counsels have been heard. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this petition arises, under Order XXXVII of the CPC, for recovery of Rs.5.25 lakhs jointly and severely from (a) Rahul Bhatnagar; (b) Santosh Kumar Bagla; and (c) United Human Rights Federation, pleading (i) that the petitioner/plaintiff is an Advocate on Record of the Supreme Court of India; (ii) that in the month of October, 2015, the respondents/defendants No.1&2 representing the respondent/defendant No.3 approached the petitioner/plaintiff for filing a matter before the Supreme Court of India where they wanted the matter to be argued by eminent senior members of the Bar; (iii) that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the case and it was numbered as W.P.(C) No.764/2015 with case title United Human Rights Federation Vs. Union of India & Ors. and which was heard on 30th October, 2015; (iv) that the fee was settled at Rs.9.25 lakhs all inclusive, towards services agreed to be rendered in the course of filing and arguing the matter before the Supreme Court and the petitioner/plaintiff was instructed by the defendants No.1&2 to engage Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate; (v) that Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, after reading the case brief, showed his inability to argue the case; (vi) that the petitioner/plaintiff was further instructed by respondents/defendants No.1&2 to engage two Senior Advocates in the matter and as per their instructions and concurrence, Mr. L. Nageswar Rao and Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Senior Advocates were briefed by the petitioner/plaintiff and they both caused appearance before the Supreme Court on 30th October, 2015; (vii) that the respondent/defendant No.1 had issued four cheques for a total sum of Rs.9.25 lakhs towards the services rendered by the petitioner/plaintiff as well as towards payment of fee of the two Senior Advocates which as per the understanding was to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff from the funds received via cheques; (viii) that at the time of issuance of cheques, the respondents/defendants No.1&2 assured the petitioner/plaintiff that the cheques would be honoured on presentation; (ix) that all the said cheques, on presentment, were returned dishonoured on 2nd November, 2015; (x) that the petitioner/plaintiff immediately informed the respondents/defendants No.1&2 of the same; (xi) that on 3rd November, 2015, the respondent/defendant No.1 handed over a pay order of Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner/plaintiff towards part payment of the sum agreed and further assured the petitioner/plaintiff that the balance amount of Rs.5.25 lakhs would be sent in a day or two; (xii) that the respondents/defendants however failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.5.25 lakhs; (xiii) that the respondents/defendants have thereby burdened the petitioner/plaintiff with fee to be paid to the Senior Advocates by the petitioner/plaintiff from her own pocket. Hence the suit. 5. The respondents/defendants in their joint application seeking leave to defend pleaded (a) that the respondent/defendant No.3 wanted to file a Public Interest Li