In a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to summon a development agreement, the High Court held that the impugned order did not call for interference as the registered sale deed sufficed to establish title, rendering the agreement collateral.
The writ petition failed; the impugned order dated 05.09.2018 was not interfered with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 16844/2018
Vinod Kumar Totla S/o Brijkishor Totla, Aged About 76 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o B-27, Metal Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur And Somani House, Kuchaman City, Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaju Singh
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order
14/11/2018
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the interlocutory order dated 05.09.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, whereby the petitioner’s application dated 05.09.2018 under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
Narrated in a nutshell, the facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner – plaintiff had instituted a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents – defendants inter alia contending that he had taken the disputed premises on rent from the defendant No.2 - The United Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd.
(2 of 2)
[CW-16844/2018]
During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application dated 05.09.2018 under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the development agreement relevant to the registered sale deed be summoned from the defendant No.1.
Learned trial court has rejected petitioner’s said application vide its order dated 05.09.2018 inter alia observing that the said development agreement was not relevant for adjudication of the lis involved between the parties.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the order impugned does not call for interference.
The defendant No.1 has purchased the subject premises from defendant No.2, by way of the registered sale deed. In presence of defendant No.2, who has not even filed the written statement, assertion of defendant No.1 that he had purchased the property cannot be doubted, particularly in wake of the registered sale deed in his favour which is a part of the record. The development agreement is only a collateral document conveying interest and title in the property to the defendant No.1.
In view of the aforesaid fact situation, this Court concurs with the view of the court below that the said development agreement is neither relevant nor required for the purpose of deciding the suit in question.
As an upshot of above discussion, the present writ petition fails.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
Himanshu/-4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's application summonsing a development agreement under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC.
Whether the development agreement is relevant for deciding the suit regarding the disputed premises.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod Kumar Totla
Shankar Lal
The United Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd.
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
