Rudra Pratap Naryan Singh (HUF) v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd & Anr

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for the relief of possession of Flat No.103, Laxmi Deep, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and ancillary reliefs pleading -

I. that upon the plaintiff approaching the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to relinquish his rights under any one of the aforesaid agreements;

2. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued to the defendants on 2nd August, 2011.

3. The defendants filed their written statement in December, 2011 pleading:

4. The plaintiff sought to file replication to the aforesaid written statement and time wherefor was granted vide order dated 17th January,

2012. However the plaintiff thereafter neither filed the replication nor appeared in the suit on 26th March, 2012, 17th July, 2012 and 3rd September,

2012. Thereafter, when the suit was listed on 10th October, 2012, the counsel for the plaintiff appeared and sought opportunity to carry out admission/denial of documents and which was granted subject to payment by the plaintiff of costs of Rs.10,000/- The plaintiff again neither paid the costs nor appeared on 3rd December, 2012, 4th March, 2013 and 19th March,

2013.

5. Today Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff appears and though admits that costs earlier imposed have not been paid, seeks adjournment stating that he will engage a senior counsel. On inquiry whether the plaintiff is present in Court, he replies in the negative.

6. The aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff is sufficient to dismiss the suit for non prosecution. The Courts cannot keep the suits of litigants, who do not appear to be interested in pursuing the same, pending and which pendency comes in the way of expeditious disposal of cases of even those litigants who diligently pursue their suits.

7. Be that as it may, the aforesaid narrative shows that the suit as framed is not maintainable.

8. The plaintiff has sued for possession of a flat of which there is only an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and which agreement to sell also, as per the averments made in the plaint itself stood cancelled by the defendants. The remedy if any of the plaintiff against the cancellation by the defendants of the agreement to sell was to sue for specific performance of the agreement of sale and which has not been done. In this regard it may be noticed that though the plaintiff has also sought a decree for mandatory injunction against the defendants for execution of sale deed of the flat in his favour but the same cannot take place of the appropriate relief of specific performance and for which relief neither has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction nor has the plaintiff made the necessary requisite averments in the plaint. It is also significant that though as per the defendants the agreement to sell of the suit flat stood cancelled way back on 28th March, 2003, this suit was filed only in the year 2011. Not only so, inspite of the plea of the defendants in the written statement filed in or about December, 2011 of the defendants having sold the suit flat as far back as on 27th February, 2009 to Smt. Asha Rani, the plaintiff has not taken any step to implead the said Smt. Asha Rani as a party to the suit. The title of the flat, subsequent to the agreement for sale of which even if the plaintiff were to be said to be claiming specific performance having vested in Smt. Asha Rani, no relief in the absence of the said Smt. Asha Rani can be given to the plaintiff.