Partly allowed

M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Jatinder Singh Vohra

Delhi HC16 Mar 2016FAO(OS)/49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench dismissed the appeal against the non-allowance of a temporary injunction for specific performance. The Court noted that an existing restraint order dated 29.02.1996 in testamentary case No.10/96 already barred the respondent from alienating the suit property. Consequently, no further order was passed, and the appeal was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of without passing any further restraint order. The existing restraint order in testamentary case No.10/96 was held to be sufficient.

M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jatinder Singh Vohra — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 49/2016 M/S JAGDAMBEY BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr Mayank Bansal, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

JATINDER SINGH VOHRA ..... Respondent Through Mr K.R. Chawla with Ms Renu Verma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 16.03.2016

¶6

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

This is an appeal against the order dated 14.01.2016 passed in IA No.5533/2015 whereby the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC has not been allowed. The plaintiff/appellant sought an order restraining the defendant/respondent from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property, which is the entire first floor of the property bearing No.A-14, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi, during the pendency of the suit. The suit is one of specific performance. A restraint order was also sought against the defendant/respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff/appellant from the said portion of the said property.

¶8

The fact of the matter is that in separate eviction proceedings, the

¶9

respondent/defendant has succeeded. The appeal being RFA No.80/2015, preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, has also been dismissed. So the position as it obtains today is that there is an order of eviction against the appellant/plaintiff. Insofar as the issue of restraint from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property is concerned, we find that there is an order already passed in testamentary case No.10/96 on 29.02.1996 as follows:-

¶10

“Orders

¶11

29.02.96 Present: Mr. R.K. Anand Sr. Advocate with Mr Kanchan Singh for petitioner.

¶12

Pr. Case No. 10/96

¶13

Let the probate petition be registered. On filing of process fee, copies of petition, issue notice to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, to the respondents and the legal heirs and near relations of the deceased, mentioned in annexure B of the petition. Citation be also issued and the same be got published in Hindustan Times and the citation be given dasti.

¶14

IA.2078/96

¶15

Notice for 7^th of August 1996.

¶16

Mr. Manmohan Singh and his agents are restrained from alienating, transferring, creating any third party interest or parting with the possession of the property bearing No. A- 14, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi in any manner until further orders.

¶17

February 29, 1996 (Sd/-) K. RAMAMOORTHY, J”

¶18

Subsequently, another learned Single Judge of this Court on

¶19

06.08.2009 directed that interim order shall continue to bind the parties. Admittedly, the respondent is a party to the testamentary case. In other words, the respondent/defendant is bound by the order dated 29.02.1996, whereby, there is a restraint from alienating, transferring, creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the property bearing No.A-14, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi, which includes the first floor of the said premises.

¶20

In these circumstances, we do not feel it is necessary to pass any further restraint order. This is so because there is already a restraint order. Insofar as the respondent is concerned, he has been restrained from alienating, transferring, creating any third party or parting with possession of the entire property bearing No.A-14, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi which includes the first floor of the said property, which is the subject matter of the present suit. In case, the interim order in the said testamentary case is vacated for any reason, it would be open to the appellant/plaintiff to apply for interim orders/directions in the suit proceedings.

¶21

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

¶23

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶24

MARCH 16, 2016/st

M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Jatinder Singh Vohra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Jatinder Singh Vohra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mustafa Aleem Siddiqi Vs Rasheeda Siddiqi & Anr.

Navayuga Engineering Co. P Ltd. Vs Public Works Department and Anr.

M/S Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Rds Project Ltd.

M/S Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Rds Project Ltd.

Prakash Atlanta (Jv) Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S Prakash-Atlanta Jv

M/S Prakash Atlanta Jv Vs National Highways Authority of India

Jagdish Bhalla Vs National Small Industries Corpn Ltd. & Ors.

Ex. Ct. G.D. Dalip Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs the Secretary, New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Malkhan Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Suresh Kumar

Radha Kishan Meena Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

V.K. Bahuguna Vs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change