Beriwala Appeal Final As Printed 09.03.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
BHAI MANJIT SINGH (HUF) & ORS. …Appellants
VERSUS
PUNIT BERIWALA …Respondent
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Urgent Application
2. Court Fees
3. Notice of Motion
4. Certificate of Trial Court Record
5. Synopsis & List of Dates
6. Memo of Parties
7. Opening Sheet
8. Appeal under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act,

1966 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment
dated 07.02.2022, passed by the Ld. Single Judge,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in suit bearing no. CS
(OS) No. 598/2021 along with Affidavits.
9. Annexure A –
Certified copy of the impugned judgment dated
07.02.2022
10. Annexure B –
True copy of the Plaint filed by the Respondent
herein
11. Annexure C –
Copies of the documents filed by the

Respondent/Plaintiff along with the Plaint –
1. Receipt dated 12.04.2004.

3. Letter of possession dated 22.04.2004.
9. Bank statement of Plaintiff from 05.05.2004 to
18.08.2004.
10. Undated letter of status of sale of suit property
11. Public notice dated 18.07.2020.
12. Reply to public notice dated 20.07.2020.
13. Reply to public notice dated 22.07.2020 by
SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited.
SREI Equipment Finance Limited.
Defendants.
16. Public notice dated 13.08.2020 on behalf of
Defendant No. 1.
17. Rejoinder dated 27.08.2020 along with
original postal receipts on behalf of
Respondent.
18. Reply to rejoinder dated 22.09.2020 on behalf
of Defendants.
19. Reply dated 09.10.2020 on behalf of
Respondent.
intending buyer.
21. Reply to public notice dated 30.07.2021 on
behalf of Respondent.
Respondent.
behalf of SREI Equipment Finance Limited
behalf of SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited
behalf of Defendant No. 1.
behalf of intending buyer.
27. Reply to objections dated 09.08.2021 on
behalf of Respondent to SREI Equipment
Finance Limited.
behalf of Respondent SREI Infrastructure
Finance Limited.
behalf of Respondent to the Defendant No. 1.
behalf of Respondent to the intending buyer.
31. Copy of certificate dated 26.10.2021 issued by
Chartered Accountant certifying net worth of
Plaintiff
(filed by plaintiff at later stage without filling any application
seeking permission of the court to place it on record)
12. Annexure D (COLLY.) -

Copy of the orders dated 22.11.2021, 08.12.2021.
13. Annexure E -
Copy written submissions filed on behalf of the
Plaintiff/Respondent herein.
14. Annexure F -
Copy of the written submissions filed on behalf of
the Appellants herein/Defendants
15. Application seeking stay of the effect and

operation of the impugned judgment dated
07.02.2022 and stay of the proceedings in the suit
i.e. CS (OS) no. 598/2021 with supporting
affidavit.
16. Application for exemption with supporting

affidavit.
17. Vakalatnama
Appellants
Through
SHEKHAR GUPTA & ARAV KAPOOR

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email: shekharguptaadvocate@gmail.com
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

BHAI MANJIT SINGH (HUF) & ORS. … Appellants
VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To
The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying Appeal and stay application as urgent and
list the same on urgent basis. The appellant is seeking stay of Impugned
judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court, in CS(OS) No. 598/2021 and proceedings thereof.
Urgent orders as per the prayer clause are prayed for.
Appellants
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
COURT FEE

F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
NOTICE OF MOTION
To
Punit Beriwala
S/o Mr. S.S. Beriwala
R/o House No. 15/10,
Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016
Dear Sir,
Please take notice that the accompanying appeal in the aforesaid matter as
being filed on behalf of the Appellants and is likely to be listed on
________________ or any date thereafter convenient to Hon'ble Court.
Please take notice accordingly.
Appellants
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
For the purpose of clarity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the
parties shall herein after be referred to as per their original position in the
suit i.e. the Appellants in the appeal shall be referred as the Defendants
while the Respondent in the appeal shall be referred to as the Plaintiff.
That the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance
for an alleged oral agreement to sell, purportedly executed in the year 2004
for the suit property i.e. 28-A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi admeasuring
3727 sq. yds. It was alleged that out of the total agreed sale consideration
of Rs.28,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight crores only) the Plaintiff had
allegedly paid an amount of Rs.1,64,50,000/- (Rupees one crore sixty four
lakhs fifty thousand only) in the year 2004-05. The Plaintiff has filed the
suit in November 2021 after a period of more than 17 years from the date
of alleged oral agreement to sell.
On a plain reading of the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint and
assuming the averments made in the plaint are true and correct, the suit
filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance should have
been dismissed without issuing of any summons. However, the Ld. Single
Judge committed a grave error by not appreciating the various objections
raised by the Defendants on the very maintainability of the suit and thus,
opposing the issuance of summons and praying for dismissal of the suit by
rejection of plaint. However, the Ld. Single Judge decided in favour of the
plaintiff and issued summons in the suit vide impugned judgement dated
07.02.2022.
Even as per the plaint the alleged agreement to sell is an oral agreement
without any date and without any specific time in which the said alleged
agreement is to be performed, for example – there was no time fixed as to
when the suit property shall be converted from leasehold to freehold; there
was no time as to when the defendants shall get the suit property free from
all encumbrances; there was no time fixed/agreed as to when the plaintiff
shall make the balance payment to the defendants and there was no time
as to when the defendants shall execute the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff.
The Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the alleged oral agreement to
sell lacks the basic and most essential ingredients of a valid agreement to
sell. The Ld. Single Judge issued summons in the suit against the well
settled principles of law. It is most respectfully submitted that the Ld.
Single Judge failed to appreciate the well settled principle of law including
the principles set out in the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in T Murlidhar
Vs. PVR Murthy, (2015) 217 DLT 79 (DB). The suit was without any
cause of action as there was no valid, binding, enforceable agreement to
sell and the plaint should have been rejected out rightly by the Ld. Single
Judge by exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.
From the reading of the plaint, it is an admitted position that since
03.01.2005 upto July 2020, the Plaintiff had remained completely silent
and no communication, oral or written, was pleaded during this period.
The suit has been filed after a long period of almost 17 years from the
alleged agreement to sell and was thus, hopelessly barred by limitation and
is a complete abuse of the process of law. The suit being patently barred by
limitation should have been dismissed out rightly by Ld. Single Judge
under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC.
Alongwith the Plaint the Plaintiff has filed a ‘rejoinder dated 27.08.2020’
(document no. 17 of plaint) issued on behalf of the Plaintiff through his
counsel to the Defendant No.1. In the said rejoinder the Plaintiff
mentioned and interalia stated that in the year 2004 it was represented by
the Defendants that the suit property is free from all encumbrances,
mortgages, loans, liens, litigation etc. It was also mentioned in the said
rejoinder that relying upon the said representations made by Bhai Manjit
Singh, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for Rs. 28 Crores
and made various payments amounting to Rs.1,64,50,000/- with effect
from 12.04.2004 to 03.01.2005. In para 7 of the said rejoinder, it was
stated by the Plaintiff that once the payment amounting to Rs.1,64,50,000/-
had been made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, it was revealed to the
Plaintiff through market resources that one M/s Mitsui and Co. had an
actionable claim in respect of the said property and it had instituted a
litigation against the Defendant No.1 for refund of an amount of Rs. 15
Crores and even Land & Development Office had been impleaded as party
in the said litigation. It was stated by the Plaintiff in the said rejoinder that
said facts were concealed by the Defendants and they had committed
wilful and deliberate fraud on the Plaintiff.
According to the Plaintiff’s own averments, the Defendants have

concealed and played a fraud on the Plaintiff and Plaintiff had become
aware of the same in 2005 itself. In the above admitted facts by the
Plaintiff it is clear that the cause of action to file the suit had arisen in 2005
itself in favour of the Plaintiff but the suit, filed now in 2021 is hopelessly
barred by the law of limitation.
The Ld. Single Judge has, on an error apparent on the face of record, made
observations and given the reasons for issuance of summons in the suit as
recorded in para-26 to the effect that “The Plaintiff has claimed that he
had been following it up with the defendants by sending them letters. An
opportunity must be granted to the Plaintiff to prove those letters placed
on the record and to establish what action he had taken in the
interregnum. A presumption such as the one pressed on behalf of the
defendants can possibly be drawn at the end of a trial if the Plaintiff was
unable to discharge the burden of proof.”
The said observations and reasons given by the court are completely wrong
and incorrect since the Plaintiff himself had not set up any such case in his
pleadings and documents filed with the plaint. There was no case set up in
the plaint to the effect that Plaintiff had followed up with the Defendants
by sending them any such letters and furthermore, no such letters were
even filed in the records of the Hon’ble Court.
From a bare reading of the plaint and documents filed with the plaint, it is
clear that there was no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff
to perform the alleged oral agreement to sell and same is evident from a
long silence of about 16 years on the part of the plaintiff. Moreover, the
plaintiff has not filed any documents which show his readiness and
willingness. Rather, the bank statements relied upon by the plaintiff clearly
depict negligible balance in his bank account which is not even remotely
sufficient to pay the allege balance sale consideration of Rs.26,35,50,000/-.
On this account alone the suit should have been dismissed out rightly by
the Ld. Single Judge under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the
CPC.
The plaintiff has not claimed any alternative relief of damages and in
absence thereof the plaint should have been rejected out rightly because on
a meaningful reading of the plaint it is very clear that it discloses no cause
of action and also barred by limitation. This is without prejudice that the
plaintiff is even not entitled for any relief of damages also.
The Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the suit property even as per
notified circle rate in 2020-2021 is valued at Rs.240 crores (approx.) and
plaintiff is claiming specific performance at a value of Rs.28 crores
allegedly agreed in the year 2004 by way of alleged oral agreement. It was
duly informed by the defendants and so recorded in the order dated
08.12.2021 that the suit property has been transferred by the defendant and
now stood sold by means of a registered sale deed dated 02.12.2021 and
possession has been handed over to the purchaser in complete and full.
LIST OF DATES
2004 Alleged oral agreement was entered between the parties

for sale of suit property i.e. 28-A, Prithviraj Road, New
Delhi admeasuring 3727 sq. yds. by the defendants to the
plaintiff for an alleged sale consideration of Rs.28 Crores.
It was alleged that the defendants had verbally agreed to
get the property converted to freehold from leasehold and
after that sale deed to be executed in favour of plaintiff.
12.04.2004 – Plaintiff allegedly paid an amount of Rs. 1,64,50,000/- to

03.01.2005 the defendants and defendants allegedly provided part
physical possession of the servant quarters in the suit
property to the plaintiff.
03.01.2005– Complete silence on the part of the plaintiff and for more
June 2020 than 16 years the plaintiff had not approached the
defendants and no case set up by the plaintiff in the entire
plaint.
June, 2020 The plaintiff had alleged that Defendant no. 2 Bhai
Manjit Singh acting on behalf of Defendant no.1
allegedly approached the plaintiff stating that the suit
property is now clear from all encumbrances and the
balance sale consideration be paid by the plaintiff so that
title in the suit property can be transferred in his favour.
The said averments in para-13 of the plaint, even on the

face, are palpably false and vexatious and not believable
by any stretch, since the suit property in the year 2020 as
per notified circle rates is valued at Rs. 240 Crores and
there was no reason and/or occasion for the defendant
no.1 to approach plaintiff for completing the sale
transaction at Rs. 28 Crores
18.07.2020 Plaintiff issued a public notice dated 18.07.2020 in

newspaper claiming agreement of the suit property in his
favour. No details mentioned about the date of alleged
agreement as to whether oral or written. Even the details
of the plaintiff are missing in the said notice.
20.07.2020- Objections to the public notice dated 18.07.2020 were

filed by Punjab and Sind Bank, SREI Infrastructure
22.07.2020
Finance Ltd., SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. regarding the
existing mortgage (equitable as also registered) of the suit
property in their favour for outstanding credit facilities
and dues.
23.07.2020, Notices, reply and rejoinder exchanged between the

13.08.2020, plaintiff and the defendants also including the public
27.08.2020, notice dated 13.08.2020
22.09.2020 &
09.10.2020
28.07.2021 Public notice issued by Shrutikirti Kumar, Advocate,

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi stating
therein that his client has intent to purchase the suit
property from the Defendant no. 1 owner and inviting any
objections from any party concerned.
30.07.2021 Plaintiff had given his reply/objection to Mr. Shrutikirti

Kumar, Advocate with copy to defendants herein.
31.07.2021 Public notice issued by the plaintiff.
03.08.2021, Objections to public notice dated 31.07.2021 were issued

05.08.2021, by SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd., SREI Equipment
09.08.2021 Finance Ltd., and also further notice and reply between
plaintiff, defendants, Mr. Shrutikirti Kumar, Advocate
and the mortgagee.
22.11.2021 Suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was

listed for the first time before Ld. Single Judge.
Defendants appeared on advance notice and opposed

issuance of summons.
Since court fee was not filed by the plaintiff court granted
1 week time to file the court fee.
Summons not issued on the said date and part arguments

heard.
02.12.2021 Court fee was filed by plaintiff on 02.12.2021, beyond

the period of 1 week.
08.12.2021 Part arguments heard.
It was duly informed by the defendants to Hon’ble Court

and so recorded in the order dated 08.12.2021 that the
suit property has been transferred by the defendant by
means of a registered sale deed and possession has been
handed over to the purchaser on 02.12.2021.
09.12.2021 Arguments heard on the maintainability of the suit and

the objections raised on behalf of the defendants under
Order VII Rule 11 (a), (c) & (d) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Order was reserved.
07.02.2022 Impugned judgment was passed and summons were

issued in the suit.
Hence this appeal

F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
MEMO OF PARTIES
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10 OF DELHI HIGH COURT ACT,

1966 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 07.02.2022, PASSED BY THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE,
HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI, IN SUIT
BEARING NO. CS(OS) NO. 598/2021 “PUNIT BERIWALA VS BHA
MANJIT SINGH HUF & ORS.”_
1. BHAI MANJIT SINGH (HUF)

Through its Karta, Vikramjit Singh,
R/o 110, Sundar Nagar,
New Delhi-110003
2. BHAI MANJIT SINGH

S/o Bhai Mohan Singh,
New Delhi-110003
3. MRS. MAHEEP SINGH

W/o Bhai Manjeet Singh,
New Delhi-110003
4. BHAI VIKRAMJIT SINGH
S/o Bhai Manjit Singh,
New Delhi-110003 …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PUNIT BERIWALA
S/o Mr. S.S. Beriwala
R/o House No. 15/10,
Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016 …RESPONDENT
Appellants
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
Certificate of Trial Court Record
It is certified by the appellants that the relevant trial court record has been
filed with the appeal. However an exemption application has been filed
seeking exemption from filling the entire court record at this stage.
Appellants
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10 OF DELHI HIGH COURT ACT,

1966 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 07.02.2022, PASSED BY THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE,
HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI, IN SUIT
BEARING NO. CS(OS) NO. 598/2021 “PUNIT BERIWALA VS BHA
MANJIT SINGH HUF & ORS.” THEREBY PASSING ORDERS
FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS IN THE SUIT AND DISMISSING
ALL THE PRELIMINARY AND LEGAL OBJECTIONS RAISED
BY THE APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS HEREIN AGAINST THE
VERY MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT UNDER ORDER VII
RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH –
1. The present appeal is being filed by the Appellants under Section 10
of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved with the impugned judgment
and order dated 07.02.2022, passed by the Ld. Single Judge,

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, New Delhi, in suit bearing no. CS(OS)
No. 598/2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned
judgment”), thereby dismissing the preliminary objections raised
Under Order 7 Rule 11 (a), (c) and (d) of CPC by the
Appellants/Defendants herein to the maintainability of the suit and
thereby issuing summons in the suit. The Ld. Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the contents of the Plaint along with the documents
read as a whole, inter-alia failed to disclose any cause of action in
favour of the Respondent apart from being hopelessly barred by
limitation and summons in the suit ought not to have been issued
thereby entailing dismissal of the suit. Certified copy of the
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 is being enclosed herewith
and marked as Annexure A.
For the convenience of the Hon’ble Court, the parties in the present
appeal are mentioned in the same manner as they were arrayed in
the memo of parties filed before the Ld. Single Judge i.e. the
Appellants being Defendants in the suit and the Respondent being
the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff herein had filed a suit, inter-alia for specific
performance of an alleged Agreement to Sell undertaken sometime
in 2004, details of which find no mention in the suit, praying for a

direction to the Defendants herein, to clear all encumbrances over
the property bearing No. 28A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi,
admeasuring 3727 sq. yds., and further for execution of Sale deed
for the same in favour of the Plaintiff after accepting the balance
payment of Rs.26,35,50,000/-.
3. The claim of the Plaintiff in the suit is that the total sale
consideration agreed upon in 2004 for purchase of the
aforementioned property was Rs.28,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
eight crores only), for which he is claiming specific performance
after a period of over 17 years. It is most pertinent to mention at the
outset that the property for which the said relief has been claimed,
has a circle rate value as on today, in excess of Rs.240,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Hundred and Forty Crores).
4. The captioned matter was first listed before the Ld. Single Judge on
22.11.2021. The Defendants had appeared on advance notice and
raised preliminary objections on the very maintainability of the suit,
seeking the dismissal of the suit under the provisions and powers of
the Hon’ble Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. That thereafter, lengthy arguments were advanced
by both the sides on 08.12.2021 and 09.12.2021, after which the Ld.
Single Judge was pleased to reserve the orders. Thereafter, the
impugned judgment was passed on 07.02.2022.
5. It is accordingly submitted that since the matter was argued at the
stage of issuance of summons, the arguments were advanced based
only on the contents of the Plaint along with the documents as filed
by the Plaintiff, without the Defendants herein filing their Written
Statement to the Plaint. As such, the Defendants herein shall restrict
the contents of the present appeal to the averments made in the
Plaint itself, and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an
admission of any of the contents of the Plaint by the Defendants.
True copy of the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff herein is being enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure B. True copies of the documents
filed by the Plaintiff along with the Plaint are being enclosed
herewith as Annexure C (Colly.).
6. That before proceeding with the grounds of appeal in order to show
as to how the suit filed by the Plaintiff herein is without any cause of
action and deserves to have been dismissed at the outset without
issuance of summons in the same, the Defendants shall hereunder
submit the brief facts of the case as set out by the Plaintiff in the
Plaint.
a) The Plaintiff claims that in the year 2004, the Defendant No. 1,
through the Defendant No. 2, being the owner of property
bearing No. 28A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, admeasuring 3727
sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”),
approached the Plaintiff as the karta of the Defendant No. 1, with
an offer to sell the said property to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
stated that the Defendant No. 2 represented and assured that other
family members of the Defendant No. 2 have also extended the
offer for sale and that the property was free from encumbrances.
b) The Plaintiff claims that after negotiation with the Defendants, it
was agreed that the total sale consideration for the said property
shall be Rs. 28,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight crores only).
The Plaintiff further claims that since the said property was a
leasehold property, the Defendant no. 2 Bhai Manjit Singh, had
undertaken to get the same converted into freehold from Land
and Development Office before transferring the same in the name
of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that it was decided that the
Plaintiff would make payment of some earnest money till the
time the Defendants get the said property converted into
freehold.
c) It is the Plaintiffs case that he paid a total sum of Rs.
1,64,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Four Lakhs Fifty
Thousand only) to the Defendant No. 1, against which the
Defendants had issued various receipts duly acknowledging some
of the payments made by the Plaintiff. The receipts relied upon
and filed by the Plaintiff are attached along with the present
appeal.
d) The Plaintiff claims that the alleged agreement between the
parties for purchasing the said property for a sum of
Rs.28,00,00,000/- has been acknowledged in writing even on the
said receipts. Further, as per the Plaintiff, other family members
of Defendant No. 2, being Defendant No. 3 and 4 also
acknowledged the above alleged agreement, since they had
acknowledged the same on the receipts dated 12.04.2004 and
14.04.2004.
e) The Plaintiff claims that since a substantial part payment of
Rs.1,64,50,000/- was purportedly paid to the Defendants, the part
physical possession of the said property was handed over by the
Defendants to the Plaintiff vide letter of possession dated
22.04.2004. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant No. 2, acting on
behalf of Defendant No. 1, vide an undated letter sought further
payment of Rs.50 – 55 lakhs for getting the said property

converted into freehold and for making payment of house tax. It
is claimed that the Defendants undertook to get the said property
unencumbered by making payments to various authorities as well
as to one Mitsui & Company in order to freely transfer the said
property to the Plaintiff.
f) The Plaintiff claims that it was then agreed between the parties
that the balance payment shall be made to the Defendants only
when the title to the said property gets cleared from all
encumbrances and also converted from leasehold to freehold.
g) Thereafter, the Plaintiff states that Defendant No. 2, acting on
behalf of Defendant No. 1, approached the Plaintiff in the month
of June 2020 stating that the title of the said property is clear of
all encumbrances and therefore the balance consideration for the
said property be made so that the title of the property can be
transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that
even as per the Plaint, there is complete silence on the part of the
Plaintiff during the period of more than 16 years from
03.01.2005 up to June 2020.
h) The Plaintiff then claims that despite request, the Defendants did
not provide any documents showing clear title of the said
property. As such, the Plaintiff issued a public notice dated
18.07.2020 in the Hindustan Times declaring to the public at

large about the above alleged agreement with respect to the said
property.
i) The Plaintiff claims to be shocked by an objection letter dated
20.07.2020 received from Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi staking claim over the site property where it was
stated that the said property stands mortgaged with them. It is
further stated the two more objection letters, both dated
22.07.2020, received by the Plaintiff from SREI Infrastructure
Finance Limited and SREI Equipment Finance Limited, where in
it was claimed that the suit property is mortgaged with them as
well.
j) The Plaintiff further claims to be stunned to receive another
objection letter dated 23.07.2020 from Defendant no. 1 stating
that there is no agreement for sale of the said property with the
Plaintiff and sought production of documents on which the
Plaintiff is staking his claim. Accordingly the Plaintiff claims
that it is for the first time vide letter dated 23.07.2020, that the
Defendants refused to perform their obligations to conclude the
sale transaction of the said property as agreed with the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further claims that it is with malafide intentions that
the Defendants issued public notice dated 13.08.2020, refuting

the contents of public notice stated 18.07.2020, which came as a
shock to the Plaintiff for the first time.
k) The Plaintiff replied to the above letter of Defendant No. 1 on
27.08.2020. Defendant No. 1 refuted the contents of the above
reply vide its letter dated 22.09.2020 by stating that Defendant
No. 2 had returned the amounts paid by the Plaintiff to him. The
Plaintiff then responded to the same vide letter dated 09.10.2020.
l) The Plaintiff claims that after the above exchange of
communications, Defendant No. 2 again approached the Plaintiff
in person stating that the Defendants wish to conclude the sale
transaction. The Plaintiff claims to have told the Defendants that
he shall make the balance payment only if the property is free
from all encumbrances and accordingly asked them to provide
documents showing the property being freehold and
unencumbered.
m) The Plaintiff claims that he was again shocked to see a public
notice dated 28.07.2021 by an advocate Shrutikirti Kumar,
declaring the interest of his client in buying the said property.
The Plaintiff responded to the said notice by an objection letter
dated 30.07.2021. The Plaintiff again issued public notice on
31.07.2021 declaring his alleged claim over the said property.
Objections to the same were received from SREI Infrastructure

Finance Ltd. and SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. and by
Shrutikirti Kumar, all dated 03.08.2021. The Plaintiff replied to
the same vide replies dated 09.08.2021.
n) As such, it is the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendants had no
intention to transfer the said property in the name of the Plaintiff
and accordingly he is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the
suit. The Plaintiff claims to be always ready and still willing to
perform his part of the obligations of making the balance
payment as agreed. It is to be noted that apart from this bald
statement, the Plaintiff has failed to make any averments or
attach any documents to show his readiness and willingness for
the past over 16 years since the time that the alleged agreement
to sell was entered into. That the only documents filed along with
the Plaint are two alleged bank statements for the period
01.05.2004 till 31.08.2004 and 01.06.2004 till 30.06.2004, both
showing negligible balance in the accounts.
o) It is further the Plaintiffs’ case that the cause of action firstly
arose in 2004 when the Defendants agreed to sell the property to
the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the cause of action again rose between
2004 to 2005, when various payments were made by the Plaintiff
to the Defendants as part payments. Thereafter, as per the own
case of the Plaintiff, the cause of action arose after that only on
23.07.2020, when Defendant No. 1 allegedly refused to conclude
the sale transaction of the said property, and admittedly in
between for a period of over 16 years, there was no
communication by the Plaintiff with the Defendants.
p) That based on the averments set out as detailed herein above, the
Plaintiff herein filed the suit, inter-alia for specific performance
of an alleged Agreement to Sell undertaken sometime in 2004,
details of which find no mention in the suit, praying for a
direction to the Defendants herein, to clear all encumbrances
over the property bearing No. 28A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi,
admeasuring 3727 sq. yds., and further for execution of Sale deed
for the same in favour of the Plaintiff after accepting the balance
payment of Rs.26,35,50,000/-.
7. That the Defendants herein, appearing on advance notice, advanced
their submissions before the Ld. Single Judge, as to why the suit
ought to have been dismissed at the outset without issuance of
summons in the suit. That after hearing arguments at length on
22.11.2021, 08.12.2021 and 09.12.2021, the Ld. Single Judge, while
reserving the orders on 09.12.2021, also granted leave to both the
parties to file their respective written submissions. Both the Plaintiff
and Defendants had filed their respective written submissions in the

matter. True copy of the orders dated 22.11.2021, 08.12.2021 are
enclosed herewith as Annexure D (Colly). Copy of the written
submissions filed on behalf of the Plaintiff are enclosed herewith as
Annexure E. True copy of the written submissions filed on behalf
of the Defendants are enclosed herewith as Annexure F.
8. Before proceeding to the grounds of Appeal, the Defendants herein
wish to submit in brief, the arguments advanced before the Ld.
Single Judge on the basis of which the Defendants had sought
dismissal of the suit at the outset without issuance of summons in
the suit. The said arguments are being stated hereunder –
a) It was submitted that the summons ought not to be issued in the
suit since the Plaint fails to disclose a cause of action and is
nothing but an abuse of process of law, barred by limitation and
as such the same ought to be dismissed under the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908.
b) It was submitted that in a suit for specific performance of
contract, the agreement pleaded must have the basic ingredients
of a legal, valid and enforceable contract, which are evidently
missing in the matter at hand. The Plaintiff had set up cause of
action based on oral agreement coupled with payment receipts.
Admittedly, there was no pleading in the Plaint or on the basis of

the receipts that any time period was agreed for performance of
the agreement. There was no time period agreed between the
parties for conversion of the suit property from leasehold into
freehold and also no time period agreed and provided for making
the property free from all encumbrances. In support of the above,
the Defendants had referred and relied upon the following
judgments to show that there was no valid, binding and
enforceable agreement in favour of the Plaintiff:–
(i) T Murlidhar Vs. PVR Murthy, (2015) 217 DLT 79 (DB) –
Para 43, 48, 49
(ii) IG Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors., 183
(2011) DLT 138 – Para 15 and 16
c) It was submitted that a perusal of the contents of the Plaint would
go to show that many of the ingredients to constitute a valid
Agreement to Sell were missing, such as –
(i) No date is pleaded or mentioned for the alleged Agreement
to Sell.
(ii) No time period was agreed upon within which the conveyance
of the property was to be effected, time being one of the
essential ingredients of an agreement to sell. Without a time
period fixed for execution of conveyance, the alleged

Agreement to Sell may continue for eternity without
consummation of the obligations of the parties.
(iii) As per the case of the Plaintiff, it was allegedly agreed that the
remaining payment will be made only when the Defendants
get the title cleared from all encumbrances and convert the
property from leasehold to freehold. It is to be noted that no
time is agreed therein for performance of either of the said
obligations. As such the basic ingredients of an agreement to
sell are lacking.
(iv) There is also no mention in the Plaint of any agreement as to
how and in what time the balance consideration is to be paid.
d) It was submitted that as per the contents of the Plaint, there are
no consequences provided for non-fulfilment of obligations of
the parties to the alleged Agreement to Sell. This could mean that
encumbrances may not be cleared by the Defendants for eternity,
or the property is never converted into free hold by the
Defendants and thus, rendering the alleged Agreement
unenforceable.
e) It was further submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the case
set up in the plaint is of an oral Agreement to Sell, for which, the
threshold is higher than where there is a written agreement. In

such a scenario there must be no possibility or doubt in essential
concomitants of the contract. Therefore, the burden to prove an
oral agreement is very heavy on the Plaintiff. The following
judicial pronouncements were referred to in this regard:
(i) Harison Traders Ltd. Vs. Raj
(ii) Bhalla, (2006) ILR 2 Delhi 219 – Para 17.
(iii) Pelikan Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamal Pal Singh, 2005 (26)
AIC 230 - paras 6, 7 and 12.
f) It was further submitted on behalf of the Defendants that owing
to rapid increase in property prices over time and owing to delay
in disposal of cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that time is
of the essence in contracts pertaining to immovable properties. It
would be completely unimaginable that a person who claims to
have an Agreement to Sell and having allegedly paid an amount
of Rs.1.64 crores towards purchase of a property, would not take
any steps for a period of more than 16 years, as is evident from a
perusal of the contents of the Plaint. Reference can be made to
the following judicial pronouncement –
(i) Sardamani Kandappan v. S Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC
18 - paras 36, 37
g) It was further submitted before the Ld. Single Judge and argued
that it is a prerequisite under S. 16(c) of Specific Relief Act that
the Plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready
and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. What is
to be proved is continuous readiness and willingness from the
date of execution of agreement till the date of final decision.
Admittedly, there are no documents attached with the Plaint to
show any readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff, at
any point in time. That the only documents filed along with the
Plaint are two alleged bank statements for the period 01.05.2004
till 31.08.2004 and 01.06.2004 till 30.06.2004, both showing
negligible balance in the accounts. The requirement to prove the
ingredients of readiness/financial capacity is essential and self-
serving averments or even oral depositions of having financial
capacity to make payment of balance sale consideration cannot
be taken as discharge of onus of proof of readiness/financial
capacity. The following judgments were relied upon in that
regard -
(i) Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Ashanul
Ghani, AIR 2019 SC 1178.
(ii) Manohar Lal Khetrapal and Ors. v. Hari Chand and Ors.
2018 SCC OnLine Del 10620, paras 7, 9 and 10.

(iii) C.S. Venkatesh v. A.C.S. Murthy (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2020
SCC Online SC 143, para 15.
(iv) GVK Airport Holdings Ltd. v. BID Services Division, 2019
(4) ARBLR 38 (Delhi), para 52.
h) It was also submitted that the suit was hopelessly barred by
limitation, even assuming without admitting that there existed a
valid Agreement to Sell as alleged. On a perusal of the Plaint
itself, it is the case of the Plaintiff that he remained completely
silent and had not taken any steps to enforce the alleged
agreement from 03.01.2005 till 23.07.2020. Neither is there any
averment nor is there any document placed on record pertaining
to any communication between the parties for these 16 years,
from 03.01.2005 until 23.07.2020.
i) It was also argued that the said property was worth over Rs. 240
crores as per the current circle rate. Even the stamp duty alone on
sale of the said property would be in excess of Rs. 15 crores. In
light of this, it is inconceivable that the Plaintiff could be granted
the relief as prayed for getting the sale deed executed in his
favour for a meagre amount of Rs.28 crores after a period of over
17 years.
j) It is settled law that the Plaint can be rejected before issuance of
summons if it is not maintainable under the provisions of Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908. Reference can be made to the following
judgments –
(i) T Murlidhar Vs. PVR Murthy (2015) 217 DLT 79 (DB),
para 7.
(ii) Ashwani Kumar v Aditya Manohar Bhide, 2021 SCC
Online Del 4752, Para 6,7,8 and 17
k) It is further most pertinent to point out that it had already been
informed to the Ld. Single Judge that the suit property has
already been transferred to a third party by means of a registered
sale deed and the possession has been handed over to the
purchaser on 02.12.2021. The same is recorded in the order dated
08.12.2021. Moreover, the process of the sale had been going on
since many months and the Plaintiff was well aware of the same
since the proposed buyer had been communicating in writing
with the Plaintiff. The suit ought to have been dismissed and
could not be maintained against the Defendants. Reference may
be had to the following judgments –

(i) Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. Deep Chand & Ors., AIR 1954
SC 75 – para 40 – 42
(ii) Dwarka Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh,
AIR 1973 SC 655 – para 6
9. As such, in light of the aforesaid arguments made before the Ld.
Single Judge, it was humbly prayed that the suit ought to be
dismissed at the outset, being completely frivolous in nature, and
having been filed with the sole attempt to harass the Defendants into
giving into the illegal demands of the Plaintiff herein. However, the
Ld. Single Judge vide its order dated 07.02.2022, due to the reasons
as mentioned therein, was pleased to issue summons in the suit.
10.Accordingly, the Defendants herein are constrained to file the
present appeal against the said impugned judgment dated
07.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge on the grounds as being
mentioned hereunder -
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
A. BECAUSE the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed
by the Ld. Single Judge is erroneous and is liable to be set
aside based solely on the averments made by the Plaintiff in
the Plaint as well as the documents attached thereto. A perusal

of the same would clearly go to show the frivolous and
baseless nature of the claims made in the Plaint, and the same
ought to have been dismissed at the outset without issuance of
summons in the same. The Ld. Single Judge has also failed to
appreciate the arguments advanced by the Defendants at the
time when the matter was heard at length.
B. Beacuase the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that even
as per the case set up by the plaintiff and on a meaningful
reading of the plaint it does merits issuance of summons and
there is no requirement of trial as the evidence beyond what
has been pleaded cannot be lead. It is stated that the plaint as
read in the present form does not warrant to be sent to trial
inasmuch as it does not possess the ingredients for
successfully getting a decree of specific performance.
C. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that it is
a well settled legal position that the time within which the
agreement is to be performed is an essential ingredient of an
agreement to sell of an immovable property as laid down by
division bench of our own Delhi High Court in the judgment
reported 2015 (Vol. 217) DLT 79 (DB) “T. Muralidhar vs.
PVR Murthy”. In the present suit, the Plaintiff has admittedly

not set up any case in his plaint that there was any time agreed
between the parties for either performance and completion of
the contract, or for conversion of the property from lease hold
into free hold or for making the payments to get the property
free from any encumbrances or for even making the balance
payment of sale consideration by the Plaintiff to the
defendants. Moreover, even the date of the agreement to sell
has not been mentioned by the Plaintiff. The learned single
judge noted T. Muralidhar in the impugned judgemnt but has
not dealt with the same.
D. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge has passed the impugned
judgment while exercising its powers under the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC, 1908. However, the
Ld. Single Judge committed errors manifest and apparent on
the very plain reading of the order. The court has issued
summons in the suit on completely wrong and incorrect basis
and observations made contradictory to the admitted facts as
set up by the Plaintiff in his Plaint. As a result of the above,
serious prejudice has been caused to the Defendants who shall
now be burdened with the trial in the suit when the suit is
itself without valid and legal cause of action apart from being
hopelessly barred by limitation as well as severely hit by
delay and laches.
E. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge has, on an error apparent on
the face of record, made observations and given the reasons
for issuance of summons in the suit as recorded in para-26 of
the impugned judgment as under –
“This court in both Harrison Traders Ltd.(supra) and

Pelikan Estates(supra), had underlined that though a
contract for sale can be oral, the burden of proof was heavy
on the plaintiff to show the existence of a concluded, valid
and binding contract between the parties. The burden of
proof being heavy on the plaintiff would not suffice to
conclude that the plaintiff in the present case may not be
able to discharge the same. Merely, because the averments
in Para No.30 reflects a gap of 17 years, no conclusion can
be drawn that there was no oral agreement, as urged by the
learned senior counsel for the defendants. The Plaintiff has
claimed that he had been following it up with the defendants
by sending them letters. An opportunity must be granted to
the Plaintiff to prove those letters placed on the record and
to establish what action he had taken in the interregnum. A
presumption such as the one pressed on behalf of the
defendants can possibly be drawn at the end of a trial if the
Plaintiff was unable to discharge the burden of proof.”
The said observations and reasons given by the court are
completely wrong and incorrect since the Plaintiff himself had
not set up any such case in his pleadings and documents filed
with the plaint. There was no case set up in the plaint to the
effect that Plaintiff had followed up with the Defendants by
sending them any such letters and furthermore, no such letters
were even filed in the records of the Hon’ble Court.
F. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that as
evident from a plain reading of the entire Plaint and more
particularly para - 9 onwards upto para - 13, the Plaintiff had
made averments about the oral agreement and alleged
payments and alleged receipts pertaining to the year 2004-
2005 and immediately after that the Plaint mentions about the
alleged developments of the year June 2020. Between 2004-
2005 to June 2020, there is complete silence and admission on
the part of the Plaintiff in the Plaint that he had not taken any
steps for 17 long years. No case whatsoever was set up that
Plaintiff to suggest that he had followed up with the
Defendants in any manner, let alone by sending them any
letters. The court below has reached wrong and incorrect
findings and issued summons in the suit for specific

performance which, besides failing to disclose a cause of
action, was also hopelessly barred by limitation.
G. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that on a
meaningful reading of the Plaint and documents filed
alongwith the Plaint, it is very clear that suit is hopelessly
barred by the limitation. Alongwith the Plaint the Plaintiff has
filed a ‘rejoinder dated 27.08.2020’ (document no. 17 of
plaint) issued on behalf of the Plaintiff through his counsel to
the Defendant No.1. In the said rejoinder the Plaintiff
mentioned and interalia stated that in the year 2004 it was
represented by the Defendants that the suit property is free
from all encumbrances, mortgages, loans, liens, litigation etc.
It was also mentioned in the said rejoinder that relying upon
the said representations made by Bhai Manjit Singh, the
Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for Rs. 28 Crores
and made various payments amounting to Rs.1,64,50,000/-
with effect from 12.04.2004 to 03.01.2005. In para 7 of the
said rejoinder, it was stated by the Plaintiff that once the
payment amounting to Rs.1,64,50,000/- had been made by the
Plaintiff to the Defendant, it was revealed to the Plaintiff
through market resources that one M/s Mitsui and Co. had an
actionable claim in respect of the said property and it had
instituted a litigation against the Defendant No.1 for refund of
an amount of Rs. 15 Crores and even Land & Development
Office had been impleaded as party in the said litigation. It
was stated by the Plaintiff in the said rejoinder that said facts
were concealed by the Defendants and they had committed
wilful and deliberate fraud on the Plaintiff.
According to the Plaintiff’s own averments, the Defendants
have concealed and played a fraud on the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff had become aware of the same in 2005 itself. In the
above admitted facts by the Plaintiff it is clear that the cause
of action to file the suit had arisen in 2005 itself in favour of
the Plaintiff but the suit, filed now in 2021 is hopelessly
barred by the law of limitation. In that regard the reliance is
placed on FATEHJI & COMPANY & ANR. VS. L.M.
NAGPAL & ORS. (2015(8) SCC 390). The rejoinder letter
dated 27.08.2020 may kindly be referred by this Hon’ble
Court, being a document of the Plaintiff and filed with the
Plaint itself, for purposes of deciding the controversy under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

H. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that on
alongwith the Plaint it is very clear that the “Right to Sue”
was accrued to the Plaintiff in 2005 itself and when in his own
words the Plaintiff became aware that the Defendant played
fraud upon him by concealing the actionable claims of Mitsui
& Co. on the suit property. Assuming that whatever the
Plaintiff has stated about alleged concealment/fraud is correct,
the “Right to Sue” accrued to the Plaintiff at that time itself
i.e. in the year 2005. However the Plaintiff has filed the suit in
2021 after a period of 16 years and the same is hopelessly
barred by the limitation. In that regard the reliance is placed
on THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS. GURDEV SINGH
ASHOK KUMAR 1991(4) SCC 1.
I. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that on
alongwith the Plaint it is very clear that the suit is hopelessly
barred by the limitation. The Plaintiff has placed on record a
Public Notice dated 18.07.2020 (document no. 11 of the
Plaint) wherein he claimed that he had entered in to a
transaction of purchase of the suit property with the Defendant

No.1 Bhai Manjit Singh HUF through its Karta Bhai Manjit
Singh and despite of being approached several times Bhai
Manjit Singh avoided completing the transaction. Also in the
‘rejoinder dated 27.08.2020’ the Plaintiff interalia stated
therein “ that although our client was under no obligation to
continuously remind you of your contractual obligations, yet
as a gesture of goodwill, our client repeatedly urge you to
complete the aforesaid formalities and to obtain requisite
sanction for conversion of said property from leasehold to
freehold from Land and Development Office so that the
balance sale consideration amount could be tendered to you
and the said property could be legally sold by you in favour of
our client by execution and registration of the sale deed”.
The aforesaid two instances stated by the Plaintiff himself
would clearly show and establish REFUSAL on the part of the
Defendants and therefore the suit filed by the Plaintiff after 16
long years from the time when cause of action arose in 2005 is
hopelessly barred by the limitation even as per Article 54,
Schedule II, Limitation Act, 1963.
J. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff has set up a case in the Plaint that the Defendants

were following and taking appropriate steps with Land and
Development Office from 2005 to 2020. It is most
respectfully submitted that it is not a ground to extend the
limitation to file the suit. The Ld. Single Judge failed to
appreciate that silence maintained by the Plaintiff for more
than 15 years amounted to abandonment of the alleged
Agreement to Sell and the suit should have been dismissed on
the ground that suit is barred by limitation and without any
cause of action. In that regard reliance is placed upon the ratio
of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgement reported “URVASHI AGGARWAL (SINCE
DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. VS. KUSHAGR
ANSAL (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE
DEFENDANT NO.1 MRS. SURAJ KUMARI) & ORS. 2019
AIR(SC) 1280”.
K. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that in cases
of transactions pertaining to immovable property time is the
essence of contract and the Plaintiff cannot be granted the
relief of Specific Performance for alleged agreement of the
year 2004 at the alleged value of the suit property for Rs. 28
Crores, now after a period of more than 16 years when the

value of the suit property has been enhanced many times and
even as per notified circle rate the value of the suit property is
more than 250 Crores. In that regard reliance is placed upon
the ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgement reported “SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN Versus
S. RAJALAKSHMI 2011(12) SCC 18”.
L. BECAUSE as per para – 13 of the plaint the case was set up
by the Plaintiff that in the month of June 2020, the Defendant
no. 2 acting on behalf of Defendant no. 1 had approached the
plaintiff and stated that the title of the suit property was clear
of all encumbrances and therefore the balance sale
consideration be made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant so that
the title in the suit property can be transferred. The said
averments on plain reading are palpably false and vexatious
since the value of the suit property as per notified circle rates
in the year 2020 was almost Rs. 240 crores and it is beyond
truth and reasonableness that Defendant no. 2 shall in June
2020 offer to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for Rs. 28
crores.
M. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to exercise its powers
under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC, 1908
when the averments in the plaint were completely false and
vexatious even to the knowledge of the Plaintiff as stated in
para – 13 of the Plaint and such malafide and mischievous suit
filed by the Plaintiff deserved to be dismissed and plaint to be
rejected outrightly.
N. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the
Plaintiff has filed the present suit in the most malafide and
mischievous manner when he admittedly knew that there was
no valid and legal agreement between the parties and also that
the claim of specific performance had already stood and
hopelessly barred by limitation after a long period of more
than 17 years from 2004-2005 upto 2021. It was for this
reason that in the Public Notice dated 18.07.2020 the Plaintiff
has failed to mention his own particulars and has further failed
to mention the date or any other particulars of the alleged oral
agreement or alleged receipts. Between 2004-2005 to June
2020, there is admittedly neither any pleadings nor any
documents from the Plaintiff to support his claim.

O. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate and to
correctly examine the case as was set up in the Plaint filed by
the Plaintiff before the court. The reading of para-28 of the
impugned judgment would show that the Ld. Single Judge has
considered the receipt dated 12.04.2004 as containing all the
essential details that form part of an agreement. This is
contradictory to the case set up by the Plaintiff himself, who
had set out the case of there being an oral agreement between
the parties. It was nowhere the case of the Plaintiff that the
receipt dated 12.04.2004 was to be taken to be the alleged
Agreement to Sell between the parties. This is further without
prejudice to the case of the Defendants that even the receipt
dated 12.04.2004, in no manner contains the essential
ingredients of an agreement to sell, as have been laid down in
various judicial pronouncements by this Hon’ble Court.
P. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the
reading of the entire averments in the Plaint clearly shows that
the Plaintiff had himself set up a case of an oral agreement
between the parties. Reading of paras 19 & 21 of the
impugned judgment shows that the Plaintiff himself had
submitted that the averments in the Plaint sufficiently

established the existence of an oral agreement between the
parties and that there was no bar to an oral agreement to sell
an immovable property. In para - 21, it was the stand taken by
the Plaintiff that there was an oral agreement between the
parties. However, contrary to the above, the ld. court below
has recorded that the receipt dated 12.04.2004 has all the
essential details that form part of an agreement.
Q. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that as
per the own case of the Plaintiff, in the entire Plaint, there was
no date mentioned whatsoever on which the alleged oral
agreement to sell came into existence. This is further evident
from the fact that even in the prayer clause in the Plaint, the
Plaintiff has merely sought specific performance of an
undated agreement to sell, without providing any details
whatsoever. Accordingly, the suit ought to have been rejected
at the outset.
R. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate the issue
of the suit being hopelessly barred by limitation having been
filed in the year 2021 after more than 17 years of the date of
the alleged agreement to sell. That the Ld. Single Judge has
reached completely wrong finding and conclusion in para - 35
of the impugned judgment that the suit filed by the Plaintiff on
15.11.2021 is well within the period of limitation. The court
below has placed reliance upon the Public Notice issued by
the Plaintiff on 18.07.2020 and subsequent correspondence
between the parties but the court below has completely
ignored the admitted position on facts and averments made in
the plaint that between 2004-2005 up to 2020 i.e. for about 17
years there were no steps taken by the Plaintiff in any manner.
S. BECAUSE a reading of para - 35 of the impugned judgment
would go to show that the Ld. Single Judge has erroneously
observed that the suit is filed within limitation, whereas from
a perusal of the Plaint as well as the documents, the same are
sufficient to show that the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation.
T. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that it
was incumbent upon the Ld. Single Judge to also consider and
appreciate that whether it was case of oral agreement or it was
based on receipt dated 12.04.2004. In either case, there was no
time agreed between the parties for completion of the

performance of the alleged agreement and in more particular
no time was agreed between the parties regarding the
conversion of the property from lease hold into free hold in
the office of L&DO New Delhi, also no timeline was agreed
between the parties regarding the steps for getting the suit
property free of all encumbrances and also no time mentioned
for making the payments of the balance sale consideration by
the Plaintiff to the Defendants. In the absence of the above
essential ingredients there was no valid, concluded and
enforceable contract between the parties and thus, the suit of
the Plaintiff was liable to be dismissed and Plaint to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC, 1908.
U. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge has on an error of law, held
in para - 29 of the impugned judgment that whether the
agreement was open ended or inconclusive for there being no
time limit, cannot be construed as this juncture when the issue
is whether the plaint ought to be rejected for non-disclosure of
cause if action or under any law. It is submitted that it is an
admitted fact by the Plaintiff and further clear from a perusal
of the entire contents of the Plaint that there was no time limit
agreed upon for performance of the alleged agreement.

Accordingly, the Ld. Single Judge was well within its right to
dismiss the suit on this ground alone at the stage of issuance
of summons.
V. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge has in para - 33 of the
impugned judgment, erroneously relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (Vol. 3) SCC
634 “Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah vs. Anton Elis Farel” to
say that the agreement was not open ended and unenforceable
since there was no time limit fixed for the performance of the
same. It is submitted that the said judgment was not applicable
to the facts of the present case due to the following reasons –
a) In Gunwantbhai (supra), there was a written registered
agreement to sell. Effect of the written agreement to sell was
that obligations of the parties were crystalized. The purported
oral agreement to sell being relied upon the Plaintiff in the
present case, does not meet the tests laid down in the
judgment of T. Muralidhar (supra) and is therefore, not an
agreement to sell in the eyes of law.

b) The amount of consideration in Gunwantbhai (supra) was
fully paid and possession of the suit property was delivered to
the Plaintiff, which admittedly is not the present case.
c) The reliance by the Plaintiff on the judgment of Gunwantbhai
(supra) to contend that the issue of limitation requires trial is
misplaced because in that case the Defendant had filed a
written statement setting up facts which were referred to and
relied upon by the Ld. Trial Court, First Appellate Court and
the Hon’ble High Court to non-suit the Plaintiff on the ground
of limitation (Para 6, Gunwantbhai (supra)). In the present
case, the Defendant has raised the issue of limitation for
rejection of plaint as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC on demurrer and has not set up any facts which require
trial.
W. Because the Ld. Single Judge feel into an error by applying
Gunwantbah(supra) as the facts of that case are completely
different for the reasons:
(i) In Gunwantbahi There was a Written and registered
agreement was existing between the parties dated
18.12.64.
(ii) In Gunwantbahi Possession of the entire suit property
had already stood transferred and handed over to the
purchaser/plaintiff in 1968. The purchaser/plaintiff was
in possession of the suit property and not claiming
possession.
(iii) In Gunwantbahi full sale consideration had already
stood paid by the purchaser/plaintiff to the seller in the
year 1972.
(iv) The above points no. (i) to (iii) had weighed in the mind
of the court as stated in para – 11 & 12 of the judgment.
The Court had decided in the peculiar facts where the
purchaser/plaintiff had performed whole of his
obligations and how long such plaintiff could keep alive
his right to specific performance and come to the court
after 29 years for seeking specific performance.
(v) In the present case filed by the plaintiff the Ld. Single
Judge failed to appreciate that the facts are entirely
different and much weaker in the sense :
(a) Serious doubt and suspicion on the alleged oral

agreement coupled with alleged receipts.
(b) Plaintiff has paid only 5.87 % of the total sale
consideration.
(c) Shockingly delay of about 16 years from 03.01.2005
upto June 2020 on the part of the plaintiff in follow-up
with the Defendants.
(d) Matter of judicial notice that the suit property is one of
the most prime in nature and during 2005 to 2020 the
price of the suit property increased manifold and by
almost 10 times.
(e) Relief of specific performance, by any stretch of
fairness, equity under law cannot be granted to the
Plaintiff.
X. Because the L. Single Hudge failed to appreciate that the
Judgment of Division Bench, Delhi High Court in T.
Muralidhar Case 2015 (217) DLT 79 is very much relevant
and principles laid down therein are applicable to present
case for the below reasons:
(i) Like in present case, T. Muralidhar was also a case of

oral agreement to sell with very vague pleadings
without even suggesting the date, month or the year
when such agreement was arrived between the parties.
No time or mode of execution of conveyance or transfer
of property was pleaded in the plaint and not made out
from any averments or documents filed by the plaintiff.
(ii) The court has rightly decided that “time within which
the agreement is to be performed/conveyance of the
property was to be effected” is an essential ingredient of
an agreement to sell of an immovable property to make
it legal, valid and enforceable agreement.
(iii) Hon’ble Division Bench in para – 63 has very clearly

stated the judgment in Gunwantbhai was rendered in
the facts of that case and it does not lay down any
absolute preposition of law that recording of evidence is
sine qua non for deciding whether every suit is barred
by law or not.
(iv) In para – 72 of the judgment Division Bench has

referred to AIR 1994 SC 853 where SC in para – 7 has
laid down that there is legal duty cast upon the plaintiff
to come to the court with a true case and prove it by
true evidence. The principle of “finality of litigation”
cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that
it becomes engine of fraud in the hands of the dishonest
litigants.
(v) Hon’ble Division Bench held that the plaint filed by the
plaintiff does not disclose any details of the alleged
agreement to sell and having concealed material facts
from the court as well as set up fraudulent pleas is not
entitled for any relief and liable to be non-suited
summarily. In the present case before Ld. Single Judge
averments made in para – 13 of the plaint that
“Defendant no. 2 approached the Plaintiff in the month
of June 2020 stating that the title of the suit property is
clear from all encumbrances and therefore the balance
sale consideration be given by the Plaintiff and title can
be transferred in his favor” are nothing but falsehood on
the part of the Plaintiff.
Y. Because in view of the above law laid down in T. Muralidhar
and distinguishable facts of the Gunwantbhai case the Ld.
Single Judge should have dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent Judgment i.e. Dahiben vs
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansali (Gajra) 2020(7) SCC 366
reateiated the principles of rejecting a plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and interalia held that:
12.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which
reads as under:
"11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the

following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed in undervalued, and the plaintiff,

on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within
a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is
written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-
paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to
be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of

rule 9
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of
the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall
not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded,
is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevent by any cause of
exceptional nature for correction the valuation or supplying
the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time
fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and

special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily
dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record
evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence
adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated
on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a

suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by
limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit.
In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the
sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1 , this Court held that the

whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is
to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time
of the court, in the following words :
"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword
of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head
unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary
civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject
a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
12.2. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action

is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in
Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
12.3. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint 2 , read in conjunction
with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred
by any law.
12.4. Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents,

on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads
as unde :
"Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which

plaintiff sues or relies.-
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document

in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter
such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the
plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the
document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of

the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession
or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff
when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added
or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly,
shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on
his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the
cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a
witness merely to refresh his memory."
(emphasis supplied)
Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed
alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for
deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a
document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it
should be treated as a part of the plaint.
12.5. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would

determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to
statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for
rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
12.6. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits,
would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into
consideration 3 .
12.7. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if
the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in
conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result
in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9
SCC 512, which reads as :
"139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is

essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must
be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the
averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be
correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint
are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614, the
Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or
a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not
merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be
construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If
the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the
court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are
true in fact 4 .
12.8. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is

manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a
right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
12.9. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the
Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or
after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the
trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557. The plea that once issues are
framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this
Court in Azhar Hussain (supra).
12.10. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states

that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in
clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does
not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law,
the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
On the basis of the above principles the suit should have been
dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge
Z. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge with all its knowledge and
wisdom, failed to appreciate that the suit property situated at
28-A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi measuring 3727 sq. yrds.
was one of a kind and an extremely premium property in the
Lutyens Bunglow Zone (LBZ) and as per applicable circle
rates, the value of the suit property is Rs.240 Crores (approx.)
in the year 2021 when the present suit has been filed. It is not
believable by any stretch of imagination that a person holding
a valid agreement to sell of a premium property situated at
Lutyens Zone, would remain silent for a period of over 16
years. The silence on the part of the Plaintiff clearly shows
that the Plaintiff himself knew that there was no valid and
concluded contract between the parties.
AA. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that even
otherwise, in the interests of justice and equity, specific
performance would never be granted where a purported
agreement to sell a property having a circle rate of over Rs.
240 crores as on today, is directed to be specifically
performed for an amount of Rs.28 crores, which had allegedly
been agreed upon in 2004. This is because it would amount to

rewarding the Plaintiff, having slept on his alleged rights for a
period of more than 17 years, for his falsehoods and inaction.
BB. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that by
any standards of reasonableness and settled principles of law,
the claim of specific performance set up by the Plaintiff in the
present suit, besides there being no valid and enforceable
contract, is also barred by limitation of more than 17 years
from 2004-2005 up to 15th November 2021 when the suit is
filed. The issuance of summons in a suit of this nature
resulting into trial proceedings shall for all purposes be
burdensome and shall cause undue harassment and prejudice
to the Defendants besides being contrary to the settled
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in 1977 (Vol. 4) SCC 467 “T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal”. In the above judgment the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid emphasis that if on a
meaningful, not formal reading of the Plaint it is manifestly
vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, the court may exercise its power under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, 1908 and such suits be nipped in the bud at the
first hearing.
CC. Because Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the judgment
reported 2005 (Vol. 7) SCC 510 “Popat & Kotecha Property
vs. State Bank of India Staff Association” has laid down that
the basic question to be decided while dealing with an
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is as to
whether a real cause of action has been set out in the Plaint or
something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get
out of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, the Ld. Single Judge
in all its wisdom, has erroneously passed the impugned
judgment for issuance of summons when the suit of the
Plaintiff is completely without any valid and legal cause of
action and also hopelessly barred by limitation.
DD. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate in the
entire Plaint and documents, the Plaintiff failed to show or
even plead as to the fact that he had always been ready and
willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, which is
a prerequisite under S. 16(c) of Specific Relief Act. It is
settled law that what is to be proved is continuous readiness
and willingness from the date of execution of agreement till
the date of final decision. Admittedly, there are no documents

attached with the Plaint to show any readiness and willingness
on the part of the Plaintiff, at any point in time. That the only
documents filed along with the Plaint are two alleged bank
statements for the period 01.05.2004 till 31.08.2004 and
01.06.2004 till 30.06.2004, both showing negligible balance
in the accounts. The requirement to prove the ingredients of
readiness/financial capacity is essential and self-serving
averments or even oral depositions of having financial
capacity to make payment of balance sale consideration
cannot be taken as discharge of onus of proof of
readiness/financial capacity. It is submitted that Para 29 of the
Plaint has been incorrectly read and construed by Ld. Single
Judge. A bare perusal of Para 29 does not reflect continuous
readiness and willingness inasmuch as no instances have been
pleaded when and how the Plaintiff has shown his readiness
and willingness in the course of 16 years. Even the reliance on
the Bank Account statement in Para 29 to state that Plaintiff is
ready and willing is contrary to the record as the statement
clearly shows that there is not enough balance to purchase the
property. Otherwise also the Networth Certificate (filed by the
plaintiff at a later stage without filling any application seeking
permission to place it on record) is a sham and even if it is

taken to be true, then also the same does not satisfy the
purchase amount of the property today.
EE. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the
Plaintiff has not pleaded the specific or even the generic
instances as to when and how he approached or followed up
with the Defendants through the period of 16 years. This
shows malafide conduct on his part in approaching the court
after 17 years. The conduct of the plaintiff throughout this
time even assuming what has been stated in the plaint is
correct disentitles him from getting any relief of the specific
performance and the plaint should have been rejected.
Reliance is placed on Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhansali (Gajra) 2020(7) SCC 366.
FF. Because the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff has not claimed any alternative relief of damages and
in absence thereof the plaint should have been rejected out
rightly because on a meaningful reading of the plaint it is very
clear that it discloses no cause of action and also barred by
limitation. This is without prejudice that the plaintiff is even
not entitled for any relief of damages also.

GG. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that it
had already been informed to the Ld. Single Judge that the
suit property has already been transferred to a third party by
means of a registered sale deed and the possession has been
handed over to the purchaser on 02.12.2021. The same is
recorded in the order dated 08.12.2021. Moreover, the process
of the sale had been going on since many months and the
Plaintiff was well aware of the same since the proposed buyer
had been communicating in writing with the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the property having been sold with due notice to
the Plaintiff, the suit ought to have been dismissed and could
not be maintained against the Defendants. The Plaintiff,
despite having due knowledge of the said sale, failed to take
any steps in that regard, and the suit in the present form ought
to have been dismissed.
HH. BECAUSE the Ld. Single Judge further failed to appreciate
the conduct of the Plaintiff, whereby the suit was filed without
having paid any court fee whatsoever. An application was
instead filed by the Plaintiff along with the suit seeking time
to file the court fee. The said application was disposed of by
the order dated 22.11.2021 of this Hon’ble court with

direction to the Plaintiff to file Court fee within a week. The
same was not complied with and no leave was sought from the
Court for condoning the delay in filing the same. The
provisions under Order 7 Rule 11(c), CPC, 1908 can be
referred in this regard. Also, Chapter 1 Part C of Delhi High
Court Rules – Examination of the Plaint - Rule 6 provides that
if deficient court fee is not filed within time fixed by the
Court, then the Plaint is liable to be rejected.
II. Because Ld. Single Judge erred in failing to take note of the
settled principle of law that Plaintiff must exhibit throughout
the subsistence of the agreement an unblemished conduct. In
the present case it is unfathomable that a Plaintiff who after
advancing an amount of Rs 1,64,50,000/- would remain in
state of oblivion and suddenly will come out of slumber and
file a civil suit for specific performance. It is respectfully
submitted that omission to take note of this makes the
impugned judgment unsustainable in law as well on facts. It is
submitted that it is explicit and clear in the plaint that the
Plaintiff was in state of slumber up to 2020 and this conduct
of dis-entitles the Plaintiff relief of specific performance. It is
submitted that no purpose will be served to send the suit to

trial on this aspect because the Plaintiff will not be permitted
and is not entitled in law to disprove this fact.
JJ. Without prejudice to the grounds based upon bar of limitation,
it is settled principle of law which is accepted and applied
even in year 2021 in the case of Shenbagan vs KK Rathinavel,
Civil Appeal No. 150 of 2022 decided on 20.01.2022 by the
Hon’ble Supreme court that inordinate delay will come in way
of grant of specific performance since it will give unfair
advantage to the Plaintiff due to escalation of price of the
subject property.
11. That the present appeal filed by the Defendants is within the
period of limitation. Certified copy of the impugned
judgement was applied on 08.02.2022 and the same was
received on 23.02.2022, Therefore there is no delay in filing
the present appeal.
12. That the documents filed along with the present appeal are the
documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff in the suit
and the same are true copies of the said documents filed with
the Plaint.
13. The present appeal is being preferred bonafide and in the
interest of justice.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances and the grounds of appeal, the appellants
most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to:-
a) Allow the appeal and set aside the Impugned judgment dated
07.02.2022, passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court, in CS(OS) No. 598/2021 titled “Punit Beriwala Vs.
Bhai Manjit Singh (HUF) & Ors.” and accordingly dismiss the suit
filed by the Plaintiff;
b) Allow costs in favour of the Defendants; and/or
c) Pass any other or further orders as may deemed fit and necessary in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
APPELLANTS
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Vikramjit Singh aged about 51 years, S/o Bhai Manjeet Singh, R/o 110,
Sundar Nagar, New Delhi-110003, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:-
1. That the deponent is the Karta of the appellant no.1 HUF and
appellant no.4 in the above-noted case and fully competent to file the
present appeal and fully conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. That the contents of the accompanying Appeal are true and correct to
my knowledge and the legal submissions are based on legal advice
and believed to be true. The same may kindly be read as part and
parcel of the present affidavit. The appeal has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of ________ 2022 that the contents
of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Bhai Manjit Singh, aged about 75 years, S/o Bhai Mohan Singh, R/o
110, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi-110003, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the appellant no.2 in the above-noted case and
fully competent to file the present appeal and fully conversant with
2. That the contents of the accompanying Appeal are true and correct
to my knowledge and the legal submissions are based on legal advice
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Maheep Singh, aged about 72 years, W/o Bhai Manjeet Singh, R/o 110,
as under:-
1. That the deponent is the appellant no.3 in the above-noted case and
fully competent to file the present appeal and fully conversant with
2. That the contents of the accompanying Appeal are true and correct to
my knowledge and the legal submissions are based on legal advice
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
CM No. _______/2022
IN
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 10 OF DELHI HIGH COURT

ACT, 1966 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO THE
STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 07.02.2022 AND TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
SUIT I.E. CS(OS) NO. 598/2021 TITLED “PUNIT BERIWALA VS.
BHAI MANJIT SINGH (HUF) & ORS.” PENDING BEFORE ON
THE ORIGINAL SIDE THIS HON’BLE COURT TILL THE
PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT APPEAL.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH –
1. That the present appeal have been filed by the appellants against the
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 whereby the Ld. Single Judge
issued summons in the suit filed by the respondent seeking specific

performance of the alleged oral agreement w.r.t the suit property
bearing No. 28A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, admeasuring 3727 sq.
yds. The contents of the appeal may kindly be read as part and parcel
of the present application and the same are not being repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.
2. That it is stated that appellants opposed the issuance of the summons
in the suit on various grounds including the suit is without any cause
of action, there is no valid agreement and suit is barred by limitation,
etc. however the Ld. Single Judge issued the summons in the suit vide
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022.
3. That it is stated that the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed
by the Ld. Single Judge is against the well settled principle of law and
liable to be side aside by the Hon’ble Court on the grounds mention in
the appeal.
4. That the appellants have a good prima facie case in their favour. The
balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellants and against
the respondent. The appellants shall suffer irreparable harm, loss and
injury in case the ex parte ad interim stay are not granted in favour of
the appellants and against the respondent. That it is stated that if the
operation of the impugned judgment is not stayed by this Hon’ble
Court the appellants shall suffer irreparable harm, loss and injury.
5. That in the above circumstances, it shall be in the interest of justice
that the operation of the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed
by Ld. Single Judge may kindly be stayed and proceedings may also
be stayed till the pendency of the present appeal.
6. That the present application is being moved bonafide and in the
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:
(i) To stay the operation of the impugned judgment dated
07.02.2022 passed by Ld. Single Judge in CS (OS) NO.
598/2021 titled “Punit Beriwala Vs. Bhai Manjit Singh (HUF) &
Ors.” may kindly be stayed and proceedings may also be stayed
in the said suit till the pendency of the present appeal.

(ii) Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour
of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
APPELLANTS
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
as under:-
present application and fully conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application are true and
correct to my knowledge. The same may kindly be read as part and
parcel of the present affidavit. The application has been drafted by my
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
CM No. _______/2022
IN
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR EXEMPTION TO FILE CERTIFIED
COPIES OF ORDER DATED 22.11.2021 & 08.12.2021 AND ALSO
FROM FILING THE ORIGINAL/CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
ANNEXURES FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL AND ALSO
SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING COMPLETE TRIAL
COURT RECORD AND FROM FILING TYPED COPIES,
TRANSLATED COPIES, CLEAR COPIES AT THIS STAGE
1. That the present appeal have been filed by the appellants against the
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 whereby the Ld. Single Judge
issued summons in the suit filed by the respondent seeking specific
performance of the alleged oral agreement w.r.t the suit property
bearing No. 28A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, admeasuring 3727 sq.
yds. The contents of the appeal may kindly be read as part and parcel
of the present application and the same are not being repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.

2. That it is stated that alongwith the appeal the appellants have filed the
copies of the documents and more particularly which have been filed
by the respondent along with the suit i.e. CS (OS) No.598/2021. The
appellants have also filed copies of order dated 22.11.2021 and
08.12.2021 which have been obtained from the website of this
Hon’ble Court and the same are true copies.
3. That at this stage it shall be in the interest of justice that appellants
may kindly be exempted from filing the original/certified copies of
the orders and annexures filed along with the appeal and seeking
exemption from filing complete trial court record and also to file
typed copies, translated copies, clear copies at this stage.
4. That the present application is being moved bonafide and in the
PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) Exempt the appellants filing the original/certified copies of the
orders and annexures filed along with the appeal and seeking
exemption from filing complete trial court record and also to file
typed copies, translated copies, clear copies.

(ii) Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour
of the Appellant.
APPELLANTS
Through

MEHENDRA PRATAP
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
New Delhi
Dated:
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
as under:-
present application and fully conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application are true and
correct to my knowledge. The same may kindly be read as part and
parcel of the present affidavit. The application has been drafted by my
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
VAKALATNAMA
F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that We, Bhai Manjit Singh (HUF) through its
Karta Mr Vikramjit Singh, Bhai Manjit Singh, Maheep Singh and Vikramjit Singh, the above
named Appellants no. 1 to 4 do hereby appoint:-

MEHENDRA PRATAP, MOHD SHAHBAZ &
AISHWARYA PARASHAR
ADVOCATES
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
(herein after called the advocate/s ) to be my/our Advocate/s in the above noted case authorize
him/them :
To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other Court in which the
same may tried or heard and also in the appellate Court including High Court subject to fees
separately for each court by me/us.
To sign, file, verify and present pleadings, appeals cross-objections or petitions for executions
review as revision, withdrawal, compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other documents
may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subjects
to payment of fees for each stage.
To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny the documents of opposite party.
To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or disputes
that may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
To take execution proceedings. To deposit, draw and receive money, cheque/s, cash and grant
receipts hereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the
progress and in the courts of the prosecution of the said case.
To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorising him to exercise the power and
authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate/s whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign,
the power of attorney on our behalf.
And I/we undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the Advocate/s or
his substitute in the matter as my/our own acts, as if done by me/us to all intents and purposes.
And I/we undertake that I/we or my/our duly authorised agent would appear in Court on all
hearings and will inform the Advocate/s for appearance when the case is called. And I/we
undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate/s or his substitute responsible for the
result of the said case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the
Advocate/s which he shall receive and retain for himself.
And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee
agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate/s remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw
from the prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the
above case and above Court. I/we hereby agree that once the fees is paid I/we will not be
entitled for the refund of the same in any case whatsoever and if the case prolongs for more
than 3 years the original fee shall be paid again by me/us.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF I/we do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents the contents of
which have been understood by me/us on this _________ day of ________________2022.
Accepted subject to the terms of the fees.
Advocates Client

Beriwala Appeal Final As Printed 09.03.2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beriwala Appeal Final As Printed 09.03.2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beriwala Appeal Final As Printed 09.03.2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

BHAI MANJIT SINGH (HUF) & ORS. …Appellants

PUNIT BERIWALA …Respondent

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

4. Certificate of Trial Court Record

5. Synopsis & List of Dates

8. Appeal under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act,

Copies of the documents filed by the

1. Receipt dated 12.04.2004.

12. Annexure D (COLLY.) -

15. Application seeking stay of the effect and

16. Application for exemption with supporting

SHEKHAR GUPTA & ARAV KAPOOR

IN THE MATTER OF:

Urgent orders as per the prayer clause are prayed for.

SHEKHAR GUPTA & ARAV KAPOOR

IN THE MATTER OF:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHEKHAR GUPTA & ARAV KAPOOR

IN THE MATTER OF:

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

According to the Plaintiff’s own averments, the Defendants have

2004 Alleged oral agreement was entered between the parties

12.04.2004 – Plaintiff allegedly paid an amount of Rs. 1,64,50,000/- to

The said averments in para-13 of the plaint, even on the

18.07.2020 Plaintiff issued a public notice dated 18.07.2020 in

20.07.2020- Objections to the public notice dated 18.07.2020 were

23.07.2020, Notices, reply and rejoinder exchanged between the

28.07.2021 Public notice issued by Shrutikirti Kumar, Advocate,

30.07.2021 Plaintiff had given his reply/objection to Mr. Shrutikirti

31.07.2021 Public notice issued by the plaintiff.

03.08.2021, Objections to public notice dated 31.07.2021 were issued

22.11.2021 Suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was

Defendants appeared on advance notice and opposed

Summons not issued on the said date and part arguments

02.12.2021 Court fee was filed by plaintiff on 02.12.2021, beyond

08.12.2021 Part arguments heard.

It was duly informed by the defendants to Hon’ble Court

09.12.2021 Arguments heard on the maintainability of the suit and

07.02.2022 Impugned judgment was passed and summons were

Hence this appeal

F.A.O. (OS) No. _______/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10 OF DELHI HIGH COURT ACT,

1. BHAI MANJIT SINGH (HUF)

2. BHAI MANJIT SINGH

3. MRS. MAHEEP SINGH

SHEKHAR GUPTA & ARAV KAPOOR

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUNIT BERIWALA …Respondent

Certificate of Trial Court Record

SHEKHAR GUPTA & ARAV KAPOOR

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUNIT BERIWALA …Respondent

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10 OF DELHI HIGH COURT ACT,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH –