Dismissed

Pramod Bajaj v. Gautam Rana

Delhi HC4 Nov 2024C.R.P./327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court condoned a 98-day delay in filing a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of a plaint. The Court dismissed the revision petition, holding objections regarding valuation, commercial court compliance, and party impleadment meritless, and stated no provision under the Stamp Act mandates impounding a document solely for forging.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 98 days in re-filing the Application is condoned; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed along with the pending application.

Pramod Bajaj Vs Gautam Rana — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 327/2023, CM APPL. 58302/2023 (stay)

¶4

PRAMOD BAJAJ .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Counsel for petitioner (appearance not given)

¶6

versus

¶7

GAUTAM RANA .....Respondent Through: Counsel for respondent (appearance not given)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.11.2024

¶12

CM APPL.58303/2023 (delay)

¶13

The Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay of 98 days in refilling the accompanying Petition.

¶14

For the reasons stated in the Application and in the interest of justice, the delay of 98 days in re-filing the Application, is condoned. The Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶15

C.R.P. 327/2023

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed to challenge the Order dated 23.03.2023 vide which the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner (defendant), has been dismissed.

¶17

The petitioner/respondent had filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction,

¶18

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 11/11/2024 at 11:26:24

¶19

Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, Damages and Mesne Profit, on 05.12.2020. The Suit was decreed for Possession and the possession already stands handed over by the petitioner/defendant, to the plaintiff. The Suit is now pending for Recovery of Arrears of Rent/Mesne Profits.

¶20

The defendant filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC wherein rejection of the Plaint, was sought on the following grounds:-

¶21

a. that the Suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees;

¶22

b. that the Suit does not come within the preview of Commercial Courts Act;

¶23

c. that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act in regard to pre-institution mediation;

¶24

d. that no documents have been filed by the plaintiff/respondent in regard to the ownership of the Suit Property;

¶25

e. that the alleged Rent Agreement is forged and liable to be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act;

¶26

f. that Ms. Gunjan Rana including the other legal heirs of the landlord, has not been impleaded as a necessary party

¶27

g. that the Company of the petitioner/defendant has not been impleaded as a party even though it was paying rent to the landlord.

¶28

Submissions heard.

¶29

The first objection is concerning valuation and deficit court fee. The relief that remains to be decided essentially is in respect of the Damages/Mesne Profits for which the Court Fee shall become payable after the same has been determined.

¶30

¶31

The second objection taken was of non-compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Court Act. However, this aspect had been taken care of vide Order dated 15.10.2022 when the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Cell in compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.

¶32

The third objection taken is that as per the Rent Deed, it was only the proprietorship concern of the petitioner that was the tenant. However, the Company has not been impleaded in the Suit. This argument cannot be more fallacious for the simple reason that the Proprietorship Firm has no independent identity but is to be sued in the name of the sole Proprietor. The petitioner admittedly is the sole proprietor and the Suit has been rightly filed in his name. This objection is without any merit.

¶33

The fourth objection taken is that all the legal heirs including Ms. Gunjan Rana of the landlord, have not been impleaded as a party. However, there is no denial that the Suit can be continued by anyone or more of the co-owners and they together represent the interest of all the legal heirs.

¶34

The last objection taken is that since the Rent Agreement is forged, it may be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. There is no provision under the Stamp Act which provides that in case, a document is found to be forged, it may be impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act. 12. There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby dismissed. The Petition is disposed of accordingly along with the pending application.

¶35

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶36

NOVEMBER 4, 2024/RS

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 11/11/2024 at 11:26:24

Pramod Bajaj v. Gautam Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Bajaj v. Gautam Rana

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

Ram Sakhee & Ors. Vs Ram Siya Sahu & Ors. (Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. )

Rajeev Mathur & Anr. Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Reena Devi Vs Sunil Kumar & Anr.

Smita Chaudhary Vs Ms. Taruna Yadav

Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs Awadh Kishore

Narendra Kumar Verma Vs Anita Verma & Ors.