Dismissed

Satish Chand Gupta & Anr. v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Apr 2018FAO(OS)/47/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice dismissed the appeal against an order rejecting a motion for return of counter-claims. The underlying dispute concerns the partition of properties of late Ved Prakash Gupta. The court directed the parties to undergo mediation to explore a negotiated settlement and listed the matter for a further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Mediation was ordered; parties directed to appear before Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal for mediation.

Satish Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Sanjeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 47/2018, Cav.No.223/2018 & CM Nos. 10506, 10507/2018

¶4

SATISH CHAND GUPTA & ANR

¶5

..... Appellants

¶6

Through : Mr.Shiv Charan Garg and Mr.Imran Khan, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Lalit Gupta and Mr.Siddharth Arora, Advocates for R-1 and R-2. Mr.Gautam Jha and Mrs.Sweta Jha, Advocates

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

O R D E R % 06.04.2018

¶11

By way of the present appeal, the appellant assails an order dated 16^th January, 2018 to the extent that it rejects I.A. No.15497/2011 (under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the CPC) filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking return/rejection of counter-claims filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 (defendant Nos.1 to 3) in CS(OS) No.2463/2010 and CC No.34/2011.

¶12

It appears that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed a counter-

¶13

claim to the appellant’s suit for partition of property No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007 which was owned by Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, father of the parties.

¶14

The respondents have filed a counter-claim seeking rendition of accounts regarding immoveable properties of Shri Ved Prakash Gupta and of the firm M/s Phool Chand Satish Chand. The primary ground which is prayed before us is to reiterate that the counterclaim was barred by limitation and that M/s Phool Chand Satish Chand was not a party to the suit.

¶15

It is submitted by Mr.Lalit Gupta appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, as Caveator, that eviction proceedings were pending against the said tenant which have been filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 under authorisation of the other three brothers including the appellant and that the appellant has no authority whatsoever to attempt to take possession from the tenant without even informing the other brothers.

¶16

Mr.Lalit Gupta, Advocate has further submitted that the appellant is guilty of concealment of facts and that he has concealed the fact that after the passing of the order dated 16^th January, 2018, the appellant has dishonestly and mischievously attempted to take possession of the portion of the property No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007 and thereafter filed an application being I.A. No.2513/2018 (under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC) seeking leave to withdraw the suit.

¶17

Copy of the order dated 22^nd February, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge on this application has been placed before us

¶18

which manifests this position.

¶19

It appears that on the request of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who express their willingness to pursue their suit for partition, these respondents stand transposed as plaintiffs.

¶20

So far as the impugned order is concerned, this position has been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff.

¶21

So far as the application for rejection of the plaint/returns of the rejection of counter-claims is concerned, the learned Single Judge has recorded the following reasons for dismissal of the application:

¶22

" The plaintiffs/applicants seek return/rejection of the Counter Claim made by the defendants no. 1 to 3 for rendition of accounts of movable properties of Ved Prakash Gupta and of the firm M/s Phool Chand Satish Chand.

¶23

It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants that (i) Shri Ved Prakash Gupta aforesaid was a partner, having 25% share in M/s. Phool Chand Satish Chand; (ii) that one Ram Sarup was the other partner in thesaid M/s Phool Chand Satish Chand; (iii) that the defendants, in the counter claim have sought rendition of accounts of M/s. Phool Chand Satish Chand; and that the said accounts will have to be rendered by the other partner of the firm Ram Sarup and who, being a third party to the suit, cannot be impleaded in the counter claim and the counter claim is thus not maintainable and is liable to be rejected and/or separated from the suit.”

¶24

Nothing has been pointed out to enable us to take a view different from the view taken by the view taken by the learned

¶25

Single Judge.

¶26

At this stage, Mr.Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue regarding the plea that the counterclaim in respect of the share of Shri Ved Prakash Gupta in the partnership is barred by the limitation, be left open for adjudication. Certainly, the view expressed in the impugned order is a prima-facie view. In case such a counter-claim is filed by the appellant, it shall be open for the appellant to press an issue for the same at the time of framing of issues and this issue would be decided in accordance with law.

¶27

This appeal is dismissed with the above observations. 13. It is submitted by the counsels who are present in this court that in CS(OS) No.2463/2010 and CC No.34/2011 which are pending between five sons and six daughters of late Shri Ved Prakash Gupta regarding his estate that the efforts for negotiated settlement are possible. Learned counsels seek an opportunity to discuss the possibility thereof by the course of mediation.

¶28

We are also of the view that such efforts deserve to be made and possibility of a negotiated settlement may be explored. 15. It is further directed that the parties to the present appeal or their authorised representative shall appear before Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Mediator at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶29

It shall be open for the Mediator to call for any party which is not present before us for participating in the mediation if deem necessary.

¶30

List on 9^th April, 2018 at 3:30 pm.

¶31

In case of settlement in the mediation, the same shall be placed by the Mediator before the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.2463/2010 and CC No.34/2011.

¶32

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶34

APRIL 06, 2018 rk

Satish Chand Gupta & Anr. v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chand Gupta & Anr. v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta & 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

R P Explorer Master Fund Vs Gagan Rastogi & Anr.

Sulekh Agarwal Vs M/S Shiv Astha Construction Company Ltd.

National Highways Authority of India Vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

National Highways Authority of India Vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

Virender Kuamr Jain @ Bobby Vs Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors.

M/S Guptajee Engineers & Anr. Vs Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (Mico)

M/S Northern Coalfields Ltd. Vs M/S Heavy Engineering Corpn Ltd.

M/S Dadhimati Constructions Vs the Muse Sarovar Portico & Ors.

Sulekh Agarwal Vs M/S Shiv Astha Construction Company Ltd.

Jagjit Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohd. Saleem Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors.

Sanjjiiv Kkumaar Vs Union of India

Corruption Against Society (Regd.) Vs South Delhi Municipal Corp and Ors.

Lokendra Gehlot Vs Union of India and Ors.