Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: -16th January, 2024.
SHRI ARJUN KANSAL ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Fanish K. Jain, Mr. Rohit Yadav and Mr. Kapil Chaudhari, Advs. (M.
8527499734)
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the Plaintiff-Shri Arjun Kansal S/o Late Shri Ram Kishore for the recovery of sum of Rs.2,77,50,000/- against the Defendant-Shri Ajit Singh Bagga S/o Shri Avtar Singh Bagga.
3. The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant had given a proposal to sell the property bearing no. ‘M-125, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi’ admeasuring 339.73 sq. yards. Pursuant to the said proposal given by the Defendant, the parties agreed that the Plaintiff would purchase the property for the sum of Rs.7.75 crores, and Rs.20 lakhs was paid initially on 8th June, 2015 as part payment. Thereafter, further payments were made. The total payment, which was received, was a sum of Rs.[2] crores.
4. It was stated that the Defendant did not honor the transaction, which led to Plaintiff filing a criminal complaint. In the said criminal complaint, the Defendant filed a bail application being ‘Bail Appl. No.1117/2017’ in which vide order dated 21st December, 2017, a settlement was recorded in the following terms.
6. It is averred that the Defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions. A sum of only Rs.[3] lakhs is also stated to have been paid to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the settlement and the Defendant, thereafter, failed to make any payments. The present suit has, thereafter, been filed seeking recovery.
7. In the plaint, the following are the prayers. “a) A decree of Rs.2,77,50,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) along with pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a. may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. b) Award the cost of the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”
8. Written statement is stated to have been filed by the Defendant. The same is not on record. Replication is also filed. The copy of the Written statement has been handed over to the Court.
9. Further, the admission/denial list filed on behalf of the Defendant is relevant, and the same is extracted below: “1. That I am the above named Deponent and the Defendant in the above mentioned Suit and hence, I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That following documents of Plaintiff are admitted /denied: - S.No. PARTICULARS/ DOCUMENTS PAGE
1. Receipt Cum Agreement dated 08.06.2015. 6-9 Admitted
2. Agreement to Sell dated 08.06.2015 10-16 Admitted (hand written contents denied)
3. Receipt Dated Admit 20.06.2015 17-18
4. Receipt Dated 11.08.2015 19-20 Admit
5. Notice dated 05.10.2015 21-23 Denied
6. Corrigendum Dated 05.10.2015 24 Denied
7. Notice dated 07.12.2015 25-26 Admit
8. Reply dated 14.12.2015 27-32 Admit
9. Rejoinder Dated 29.12.2015 33-37 Admit
10. Complaint dated 07.03.2017 38-47 Admit
11. FIR dated 13.04.2017 48-64 Admit
12. Order dated 14,11.2017 65-66 Admit
13. Order dated 21.12.2017 67-70 Admit
14. Affidavit of Defendant dated 21.12.2017 71-74 Admit
15. Affidavit of Plaintiff dated 22.12.2017 75- Admit
16. Cheque dated 30.04.2018 79 Admit
17. Cheque Return Memo dated 02.05.2018
18. Cheque dated 30.06.2018 81 Admit
19. Cheque Return Memo dated 03.07.2018
20. Order dated 20.09.2018 83-84 Admit
21. Order dated 02.09.2019 85- Admit
22. Sale Deed dated 06.06.2017 89- Admit
23. Sale deed dated 06.06.2017 113- Admit
24. Seizure Memo 137 Admit..”
10. A perusal of the above affidavit of admission/denial dated 10th November, 2021, filed with the Written statement handed over in Court, reveals that the Defendant has admitted most of the documents, including agreement to sell, receipts, notices, replies as also the orders dated 14th November, 2017 and 21st December, 2017 and the affidavit filed by the Defendant dated 21st December, 2017. In the said affidavit, the Defendant had agreed to make the payment as recorded in the settlement.
11. Since there is no appearance for the Defendant, even after perusing through the Written statement, this Court is of the opinion since the suit was filed based on an order of settlement recorded before a ld. Single Judge of this Court, the Defendant cannot be allowed to renege from the settlement.
12. The admission of the receipt of amounts in the written statement, and the agreement to sell, in any event, leaves the Defendant with no defense. The Plaintiff is entitled to a decree both in view of the admissions and in view of the orders dated 14th November 2017 and 21st December 2017, which recorded the settlement.
13. In light of these facts and circumstances, and considering that the Defendant had admitted to paying a sum of Rs.2.31 crores, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.2.31 crores, along with Rs.46,50,000/- as delayed payment in accordance with the terms of the settlement. In addition, 6% interest on the entire decretal amount shall be payable from the date of the institution of the suit, i.e., 5th December 2020. Ordered accordingly.
14. The suit is decreed in the above terms. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 16, 2024/dk/dn