Full Text
Translation output
t: r' 'l
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF c.R.P. 8912011
SHEELA SANDHU & ORS
Thlough:
SARVJIT SINGH KHOSLA
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI.... Petitioners
Dr. Amitabh Sen, Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh &
Ms. Mansi Makkar. Advocates
SHEELA SANDHU & ORS
Thlough:
SARVJIT SINGH KHOSLA
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI.... Petitioners
Dr. Amitabh Sen, Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh &
Ms. Mansi Makkar. Advocates
VERSUS
..... Respondent
None
-r- ilr
None
-r- ilr
CORAM:
HON'BI,E MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
"/o 18.07.2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Thc main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-plaintiff had not placed on record any documentary proof that he was entitled to receive service charges as a property broker from both the sides i.e. lessor and lessee and that he having admitted in the plaint itself that he had received service charges from the tenant to whom he got inducted in the tenanted premises of respondents-defendants. He had no right to sue respondents- defendants for the suit amount on account of service charges payable by the
,ir
1} respondents as well. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the trial
Court should have allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reject the plaint at the threshold.
I have gone through the impugned order as well as the contents made in the plaint which only have to be read by the Courts while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The avennents made in the plaint that as per the agreed condition respondents-defendants were also liable to pay the c.R.P.89t20ll Page I of2
2011:DHC:10177
^1.
;t
:) suit amount on account of all services rendered by him for arranging of tenant in their premises whether or not he would be finally in a position to establish any such agreement between him and the respondents-defendants it should be a matter of trial and adjudication and it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or barred by law. I do not find any material inegularity committed by the learned trial Court justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
This revision petition is dismissed in limine.
JULY 18,20lLlpg
P.K. BHASIN,J c.R.P.89/2011 Pase 2 of 2
2011:DHC:10177
"/o 18.07.2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Thc main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-plaintiff had not placed on record any documentary proof that he was entitled to receive service charges as a property broker from both the sides i.e. lessor and lessee and that he having admitted in the plaint itself that he had received service charges from the tenant to whom he got inducted in the tenanted premises of respondents-defendants. He had no right to sue respondents- defendants for the suit amount on account of service charges payable by the
,ir
1} respondents as well. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the trial
Court should have allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reject the plaint at the threshold.
I have gone through the impugned order as well as the contents made in the plaint which only have to be read by the Courts while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The avennents made in the plaint that as per the agreed condition respondents-defendants were also liable to pay the c.R.P.89t20ll Page I of2
2011:DHC:10177
^1.
;t
:) suit amount on account of all services rendered by him for arranging of tenant in their premises whether or not he would be finally in a position to establish any such agreement between him and the respondents-defendants it should be a matter of trial and adjudication and it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or barred by law. I do not find any material inegularity committed by the learned trial Court justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
This revision petition is dismissed in limine.
JULY 18,20lLlpg
P.K. BHASIN,J c.R.P.89/2011 Pase 2 of 2
2011:DHC:10177
JUDGMENT