Disposed

Pankaj Kumar v. Rita Banerjee

Delhi HC24 Sept 2024CM(M)/3462/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant defending a recovery suit sought production of an original Memorandum of Understanding allegedly executed for purchase of the suit property; the trial court had dismissed his applications. In the High Court the petitioner did not press the petitions and was permitted to place on record a copy of his Order XII Rule 8 legal notice.

What did the court decide?

Permission to place on record copy of Order XII Rule 8 CPC legal notice dated 28.07.2024; petitions disposed as not pressed.

Pankaj Kumar Vs Rita Banerjee — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~82&84

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision^: 24^th September, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 3462/2024 & CM APPL. 56067/2024 & CM APPL. 56284/2024

¶5

PANKAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Gaur and Mr. Equebal Nasir, Advocates. versus RITA BANERJEE .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Mohini Narain with Mr. Rajan Narain, Advocates.

¶6

¶7

- CM(M) 3464/2024 & CM APPL. 56125/2024 & CM APPL. 56283/2024

¶8

PANKAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Gaur and Mr. Equebal Nasir, Advocates.

¶9

versus

¶10

RITA BANERJEE .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Mohini Narain with Mr. Rajan Narain, Advocates.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

Petitioner is defending a recovery suit for possession, mesne profits and damages.

¶13

The case is at the stage of defendant’s evidence already.

¶14

During the trial, the defendant (petitioner herein) had moved an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC.

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2024 11:43:54

¶16

CM(M) 3462/2024 & connected matter Page 1 of 3

¶17

According to petitioner/tenant, there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties which was signed and executed by both of them on 06.11.2017 and pursuant to such MOU, the defendant/tenant had agreed to purchase the suit property against total sale consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/- and that out of the above said amount, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/was also paid to the respondent/plaintiff.

¶18

According to defendant/tenant, the original signed document i.e. said MOU was kept by the plaintiff and he was merely, given a photocopy.

¶19

As per the case of the respondent/plaintiff, there was never any such execution of any MOU and the aforesaid document is forged and fabricated. Moreover, there is no proof of alleged payment.

¶20

It was in the above said backdrop that the petitioner had moved the above said application seeking production of the original MOU.

¶21

Since the execution of the MOU had been specifically denied and since it had rather been labeled as forged and fabricated document, the learned Trial Court dismissed the above said application on 14.02.2024.

¶22

By virtue of another order dated 07.08.2024, the petitioner i.e. defendant prayed to place on record some more additional documents i.e. report of handwriting expert, the copy of the notice issued by him under Order XII Rule 8 CPC as well as copy of one plaint which has been filed by the petitioner herein very recently.

¶23

Such application was also dismissed.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CM(M) 3462/2024 & connected matter Page 2 of 3

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2024 11:43:54

¶27

This is how the above said two orders have been challenged in the present petitions.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff appears on advance notice.

¶29

After hearing the arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner states that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he does not press his petitions but seeks direction only with respect to placing on record a copy of notice dated 28.07.2024 which he had served upon the other side under Order XII Rule 8 CPC.

¶30

A copy of such legal notice was also placed before the learned Trial Court.

¶31

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above said statement made by the learned counsel for petitioner, both the petitions are hereby disposed of as not pressed. However, at the same time, the petitioner is permitted to place on record the copy of the legal notice issued by him to the respondent herein under Order XII Rule 8 CPC.

¶32

Both the petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶33

(MANOJ JAIN)

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024/ sw

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

CM(M) 3462/2024 & connected matter Page 3 of 3

¶38

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2024 11:43:54

Pankaj Kumar v. Rita Banerjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. Rita Banerjee

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

Ms Ratan Chandra Spices and Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamini Bhatia Proprietor. of Ms Mahima Herbs and Anr. & Anr.

Bank of Baroda Vs Mr Satish Kumar Sethi & Anr.

Hapreet Singh Chadha Alias Shampy Vs Dwarka Nath Chandok and Sons through Karta

Kanchana M Shekhar Vs Avinash Shekhar

Icici Bank Limited Vs Rumneek Bawa & Anr.

MCD Vs Sunila

Sushila Jain and Anr. Vs Anand Padia

Dr Archana Rai Vs Rajasthan Technical University & Anr.

Ms Ratan Chandra Spices and Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamini Bhatia Proprietor. of Ms Mahima Herbs and Anr. & Anr.

Bank of Baroda Vs Mr Satish Kumar Sethi & Anr.

Hapreet Singh Chadha Alias Shampy Vs Dwarka Nath Chandok and Sons through Karta

West Wind Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Mediratta S/O Sh. K.C Mediratta Proprietor, M/S Sachidanand Insulations

Pankaj Kumar Vs Rita Banerjee

Kundan Rice Mills Limited Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.