Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFA 322/2013 & CMNo.10620/2013 (for stay).
PUNJAB &SIND BANK Appellant
Through; Mr. Rajinder Wali, Adv.
Thi-ough: Ms. Megha Katari, Adv. for R-2&7.
Ml". G.P. Thaieja, Adv. for R-8.
Mr. Vinay Gupta & Mr. R. Ravi, Adv. for R-lO&ll.
12.
RAJ KUMAR JAIN &ANR Appellants Though: Mr. Vinay Gupta & Mr. R.Ravi, Advs.
Thi-ough: Ms. Megha Kataii, Adv. for R-2&7.
Mr. G.P. Thareja, Adv. for R-8.
Mr. Rajinder Wali, Adv. for R-10., CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
29.10.2013
ORDER
1. Both appeals impugn the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28'"' May, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge-14, Central Delhi in CS No.79/2013 filed bythe respondents no.l to 9inboth the appeals. RFA 322/2013 &RFA 359/2013 p^ge j of[4] 2013:DHC:8567 u
2. Notice of both the appeals was issued and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 16^'' July, 2013 in RFA No.322/2013 the respondents no.l to 9 restrained from dealing with their respective flats in propeity No.7-A, Rajpui- Road, New Delhi. Vide ex parte ad interim order dated 2'"^ August, 2013 in RFA No.359/2013, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree in so far as restraining the appellant in RFA No.359/2013 from acting on the settlement with the appellant Bank in RFA No.322/2013 was stayed.
3. The counsel for the respondents no.2 to 8 and the counsel for the respondent no.9, in both the appeals, have no objection to the ex parte judgment and decree impugned in these appeals being set aside and the matter being remanded for tiial ui accordance with law. They however state that till the decision of the application of the said respondents/plaintiffs no. 1 to 9 under Order 39 Rules 1&2 of the CPC, the flats of the respondents in propeity No.7-A, Rajpur Road, Delhi be protected.
4. The respondent no.l in both the appeal namely Futuristic Properties (?) Ltd. remains unsei-ved in RFA No.359/2013, though it has been sei-ved in RFA No.322/2013. None appears for the respondent no.l. On enquiiy it is infonned that the respondent no. 1 is also the owner of one of the flats in the. propeity.
5. Considering that the respondents no.l to 9 had together filed the suit and were represented by the same Advocate before the Trial Court, need is not felt to await the respondent no. 1 any fiiither.
6. I am surprised, from the learned AddL District Judge having proceeded against exparte, particularly against the appellant Bank in RFA RFA 322/2013 & RFA 359/2013 page 2 of[4] No.322/2013, in undue haste on report of seivice by affixation only and decreeing the suit within 24 days of filing thereof For this reason also, there are sufficient grounds for setting aside of the ex parte decree in so far as in favour ofthe respondent no. 1/plaintiff
7. The counsel for the appellant Bank in RFA No.322/2013 informs that the appellant Bank has tiansfeiTed its rights in the propeity No.7-A, Rajpui" Road, Delhi by Tripaitite Agreement between the Bank, appellant no.l in RFA No.359/2013 and the Sti^ategic Investors in favour of the Strategic Investors and only the consideration remains to be paid by the Strategic Investors in instalments ending on 30'' June, 2014.
8. It has been enquii'ed from the counsels for the respondents no.2 to 9 whether they desire the particulars of the Strategic Investors to implead it as a paity to the suit; they state that they have the requisite paiticulais.
9. The impugned judgment and decree is accordingly set aside. However, since the same has been set aside without going into the merits of the claims of the respondents no.l to 9, the suit is remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the District Judge (Central) on 15 November, 2013. The District Judge is requested to 4 either tiy the suit himselfherself or mai'k the same to some Addl. District Judge other than tlie one who had passed the ex parte judgment and decree which has been set aside.
10. The Trial Couit is fuither requested to dispose of the application of the respondents no.l to 9 plaintiffs for interim reliefbefore 15^'' December,
2013. All counsels agree to co-operate in the same. The counsels for the appellants m both the appeals state that they will file theii" written statement RFA 322/2013 & RFA 359/2013 page 3 of[4] with advance copies to the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs on before 15November, 2013.
11. The Trial Court record be returned, forthwith to the Distiict Judge (Centi'al).
12. No costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.
OCTOBER 29, 2013 PP RFA 322/2013 & RFA 359/2013 RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J. page 4 of[4]