Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
PRAVEEN CHOPRA ..... Petitioner
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Mr. Kartikey Mittal and Ms.Stuti Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Dikshant Khanna, Advocate
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.09.2019 in CS No.613522/2016 titled as “Rajrani Chopra vs. Parveen Kumar Chopra” whereby the petitioner/defendant sought to withdraw the consent given by him whereupon the Court has passed a consent decree of partition. [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
2. Mr. Sanjay Misha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the consent decree was passed on 15.02.2017 and by the next date of hearing, an application bringing on record the objection that CM(M) 1642/2019 2 the consent was not obtained freely from the petitioner was filed.
3. Learned counsel submitted that by way of the impugned order, the learned Trial Court overlooked the crucial aspects raised by the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the petitioner/defendant is an illiterate person and was mentally impaired from childhood and could not connect or comprehend what the proceedings were all about.
4. Learned counsel submits that in the written statement of the petitioner, the petitioner had categorically asserted that on the basis of oral family settlement, the petitioner/defendant was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property.
5. Learned counsel further submits that on 15.02.2017, the petitioner was mislead into believing that consent was to be given for the purposes of 1/3rd share and not for 1/6th share as revealed later on by reading the preliminary decree. Learned counsel submits that the previous counsel had not explained correctly the fact that the consent which was obtained and signed before the Court was in respect of 1/6th share and not 1/3rd which he was lead to believe.
6. Learned counsel further submits that an application to the L&DO was made by the other two brothers in respect of substitution of the lease, wherein the other two brothers had specifically stated that the substitution was to be carried out in the name of the three brothers including the petitioner/defendant.
7. Learned counsel submits that on such representation having being made to the petitioner, the petitioner trusted the other parties to the suit and had signed the statement giving his consent, albeit, for 1/6th share, CM(M) 1642/2019 3 on the assurance that it is actually 1/3rd share which he is entitled to. Learned counsel has taken this Court through the application seeking withdrawal of the consent.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no such misrepresentation was made to the petitioner at all by any of the other parties to the partition suit.
9. Learned counsel submits that the allegations in respect of the application made before the L&DO is un-substantiated for the reason that no such application was ever filed or signed.
10. In respect of the misrepresentation too, learned counsel submits that no specific allegation in the application has been made against any of the other parties to the partition suit.
11. This Court has heard the arguments urged by the counsel for the parties and has also considered the impugned order and other documents on record impugning the consent signed by the petitioner/defendant.
12. It is an admitted case of the parties that a suit for partition was filed between themselves in respect of the certain suit property and it was only on 15.02.2017 after the mediation proceedings had failed that the parties had agreed to certain distribution of shares before the learned Trial Court.
13. This Court has also observed the statement of the petitioner/defendant appearing at page no.33 of the paper book, whereby the petitioner/defendant has appended his signatures which is clear and categorical. It would apposite to extract the said consent here under: “New No. 613522/16 Raj Rani Chopra Vs Parveen Kumar Chopra 15.02.2017 CM(M) 1642/2019 4 Statement of Sh. Parveen Kumar Chopra S/o Late Sh. Desh Raj R/o 11/18, Ground Floor, Subhash Nagar, New Deihi-110027 ON SA I have no objection if the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed and a decree for partition of property No, 11/18. Subhash Nagar, New-Delhi is passed to the extent of 5/6 share of the property in favour of the Plaintiff (including remaining LRs of my deceased father late Sh. Deshraj) and 1/6 share in my favour. RO & AC (Kaveri Baweja) Additional District Judge-03 (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi. 15.02.2017”
14. This Court has also observed that the decree itself was passed on 15.02.2017, copy of which is placed at page 31 of the paper book.
15. This Court has closely scrutinized the application which was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant seeking withdrawal of his consent which is purported to have been given under pressure while the statement was being recorded on 15.02.2017 before the learned Trial Court.
16. The entire application is replete with references to the blame being placed on the previous counsel, who is stated to not have given the correct advice to the petitioner/defendant as also for not having divulged the correct facts that consent decree was passed with respect only to 1/6th share and not 1/3rd share which the petitioner/defendant CM(M) 1642/2019 5 claimed to have agreed to.
17. This Court has carefully scrutinized the application seeking withdrawal of consent which indicated that the other grounds which are raised are that he was unaware of the English language and also to the fact that he was a patient of mental impairment. That apart, there is no allegation that there was either misrepresentation on behalf of the other parties to the suit or a fraud played by any of them, which this Court has to take serious note of.
18. It is clear from the perusal of the said application that there is no allegation made against either the brothers or any other party to the partition suit except the blame against his own counsel. On a query, learned counsel submits that no action had been taken against the previous counsel.
19. In view of the above, it is very difficult for this Court to believe that there was any misrepresentation or fraud play upon the petitioner/defendant or upon the learned Trail Court for doubting the consent or the preliminary decree passed on the basis of such consent.
20. In that view of the matter, present petition is dismissed for want of merits, though without any costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 3, 2023