Dismissed

Virender Singh v. Raj Bala Devi & Ors.

Delhi HC28 Jul 2016FAO/219/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal impugning an order rejecting a stay application in a specific performance suit, as it was not pressed with permission. The court directed the trial court to expedite evidence recording and decide within six months, disposing of matters without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; trial court directed to expedite evidence recording and decide suit within six months; appeal and application disposed of.

Virender Singh Vs Raj Bala Devi & Ors. — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~7

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ FAO 219/2015 & C.M.12186/2015

¶4

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev Singh Chauhan, Advocate

¶5

VIRENDER SINGH

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJ BALA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sukh Bir Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1-3

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶10

¶11

O R D E R 28.07.2016

¶12

Impugned order of 6^th June, 2015 rejects appellant-plaintiff’s application for stay in a suit for specific performance in respect of suit property. It is noted in the impugned order that the existence of Agreement to Sell is denied by the respondent-defendants. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there are photographs of the parties on Agreement to Sell and with the help of a handwriting expert, it will be easily established that the signatures on Agreement to Sell are of the respondents.

¶13

No doubt, respondents are not in possession of the suit property as of now as the legal heirs of late Sh. Nihal Singh are yet to hand over the possession of the suit property in pursuance of a partition decree, but the validity of existence of the specific performance agreement of 30^th November, 2012 is an issue which can be resolved after substantial

¶14

FAO 219/2015

¶15

Page 1

¶16

evidence is recorded.

¶17

In view of above, learned counsel for appellant does not press this appeal while seeking the permission to file a fresh application for stay if there is any change in fact situation after the evidence of plaintiff and his witness i.e. a handwriting expert, is recorded. Both sides submit that the recording of evidence has commenced and the matter is now coming up before the trial court soon for cross-examination of the appellant.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of this case, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed with permission to appellant to file a fresh application for stay if there is any change in fact situation after the evidence of plaintiff and his witness i.e. a handwriting expert, is recorded by the trial court. It is deemed appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite the recording of evidence and to return the decision in the appellant’s suit preferably within a period of six months from the date already fixed.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are disposed of while not commenting upon the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either side at trial.

¶20

Trial court record be remitted back forthwith. Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith.

¶21

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶22

JULY 28, 2016 s

¶23

FAO 219/2015

¶24

Page 2

Virender Singh v. Raj Bala Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Singh v. Raj Bala Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew a Pattiyani Vs Nand Kishore & Ors. (Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.)

Kanta Bhatia Vs Mahinder Gupta & Ors.

Thakur Dass Kumbnani Vs Jagdish Kumar & Ors.

Uma Shankar Gupta Vs Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Anita Shah & Anr. Vs Anil Gami & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bishambar Singh & Ors.