Allowed

Praveen Kumar Arya & Anr. v. Ved Prakash Arya & Anr.

Delhi HC20 Nov 2024C.R.P./18/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC, the Court disposed of a suit wherein Plaintiffs challenged a Sale Deed fraudulently executed by a GPA holder. Finding no challenge to the GPA itself and noting a prior Counter-claim, the Court held there was no cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed; Suit rejected; Revision Petition disposed of.

Praveen Kumar Arya & Anr. Vs Ved Prakash Arya & Anr. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 18/2020

¶4

PRAVEEN KUMAR ARYA & ANR

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Rustagi and Mr. J. Karan Malhotra, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

VED PRAKASH ARYA & ANR

¶8

.....Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 20.11.2024 1. A Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC has been filed to challenge the Order dated 14.08.2019 vide which the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC of the Petitioner/Defendant has been dismissed.

¶12

The Petitioner (Defendant No.1 and 2) has explained that a Sale Deed was executed in their favour by Defendant No.3 Sh. C.B. Arya (since deceased) and now represented by Plaintiff No.1, on the basis of GPA dated 18.06.2004 executed by Plaintiff No.1 and 2 (who are Respondent No.1 and 2) in favour of their father/Defendant No.3. It is further submitted that it is only in 2017 that the present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs (Respondent) challenging the Sale Deed on the ground that Defendant No.3, their father, had been fraudulently induced into execution of the Sale Deed on the pretext of signing of some loan documents.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/11/2024 at 14:22:47

¶14

It is submitted that the Petitioner had first filed a Suit bearing NO.CS536280/2016 for Injunction to restrain the Defendant No.3 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Petitioners. In the said suit, the Defendant No.3/GPA Holder of the respondents filed a Counter-claim bearing CS No.506/2017 dated 02.05.2017 challenging the Sale Deed on the same grounds.

¶15

Thereafter, the respondents have filed the present suit on 07.06.2017, wherein they have challenged the Sale Deed dated 24.11.2009 on the ground that they have got it executed fraudulently by the GPA holder/Defendant No.3.

¶16

It is submitted that there is no challenge to the GPA in favour of Defendant No.3 by the Plaintiffs; rather it is admitted that the GPA had been executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of their father. There is also no relief claimed against the father. They have no locus to challenge the Sale Deed without first challenging the GPA.

¶17

Moreover, the father, who is the GPA holder, has already filed a Counter-claim in which the Plaintiff No.1 Shri Ved Prakash Arya has already been substituted. It is submitted that once, the Sale Deed already stands challenged by way of an earlier suit, the subsequent suit filed by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable and does not disclose any cause of action.

¶18

None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

¶19

The Respondents are proceeded ex-parte.

¶20

Submissions heard .

¶21

From the submissions addressed on behalf of the Revisionist it is evident that there is a challenge to the Sale Deed executed way back in 2009 by Defendant No.3 Late Shri C.B. Arya, on the basis of a GPA. There is no

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/11/2024 at 14:22:47

¶24

challenge, whatsoever, made by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to the execution of GPA. It is the GPA holder Shri C.B. Arya, who has claimed that he had been fraudulently made to sign the Sale Deed for which he had already filed an earlier suit which is pending.

¶25

There is no cause of action disclosed in the present suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is hereby allowed and the Suit is rejected. 12. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶27

NOVEMBER 20, 2024/va

¶28

Praveen Kumar Arya & Anr. v. Ved Prakash Arya & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Arya & Anr. v. Ved Prakash Arya & Anr.

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

Smt Shiny Boby Raj and Anr. Vs Tata Aig Gen Ins Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Attar Singh Vs Nitin Shokeen & Anr.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rohtash Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Re-in the Matter of M/S Electronic Trade & Technology Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs .....

Vineet Taneja Vs Ritu Taneja

Rahul Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.