MS. RENU KUMARI (KHANNA) & ANR. vs SH. RAVI KHANNA & ORS.

2024-03-27 Information

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 25/2024 & CM APPL. 9988/2024
MS. RENU KUMARI (KHANNA) & ANR. ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Yugansh Mittal and Mr. Keshav Poonia, Advocates
versus

SH. RAVI KHANNA & ORS. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Kapur, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Sachet Sharma, Mr. Aman Bhardwaj and Mr. Arpit Sharma, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Girish Chander, Advocate for R-3 and 4
Mr. Jatan Singh, Mr. Siddharth Singh, Mr. Tushar Lamba, Ms. Vanshika Adhana, Advocates with R-11 in person
Mr. S.K. Kalia, Advocate for R-8 to 11 and 13
% Date of Decision: 27th March, 2024

CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenging the impugned ad-interim order dated 24th January, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 11058 of 2023 filed in CS(OS) No. 3432 of 2015.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that initially when I.A. No. 11058 of 2023 was heard on 31st May, 2023, the then learned Single Judge after perusing the pleadings had expressly declined grant of an ad-interim order. He states that the impugned ad-interim order has been passed in the same application without any new fact being brought on record by the applicant. He states that the pleadings on record demonstrates that the subject property stood disposed of in favour of third parties, even prior to the institution of the suit.
2.1. In addition, he states that the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has issued directions at paragraph 6 which have the effect of operating in rem and against documents exhibited by third parties. He states that in the earlier order dated 31st May, 2023, the Court had recorded that the sale deed dated 27th January, 2023, has not been executed by Appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 but by third parties.
3. In reply, learned counsel for Respondent No.11/defendant no. 12 states that I.A. No. 11058 of 2023 has been filed by the said Respondent. He states that the present appeal is not maintainable against the impugned ad-interim order. He states that the Appellants must await the final disposal of the I.A. No. 11058 of 2023. He states that in pursuance to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 5 of the impugned order, directing the Respondent to take steps for impleading the third parties who are dealing with subject property; I.A. No. 3182 of 2024 stands filed and is pending adjudication. He states that the directions issued at paragraph 6 of the impugned order have been necessitated to protect the subject property as the Respondent No.11 disputes the averments made by the Appellants in their written statements with respect to prior disposal of the subject property. He states that as per Respondent No.11, the Appellants continued to presently occupy and enjoy the subject property.
4. Similarly, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/plaintiff states that he supports the stand of Respondent No.11. He as well states that the Appellants are in possession and control of the subject property.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since the impugned order dated 24th January, 2024, is an ad-interim order and I.A. No. 11058 of 2023 is still pending adjudication, it would be appropriate that the said application is finally heard and considered expeditiously so that the rival pleas of the parties with respect to the prior disposal, if any, of the subject property is decided at the first instance by the learned Single Judge.
6. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the date of hearing before the learned Single Judge is advanced to 01st May, 2024. The learned Single Judge is directed to hear and finally dispose of I.A. No. 11058 of 2023 within four weeks thereafter.
7. The restraint order dated 29th August, 2016, passed in I.A. No. 2591 of 2015 is directed against the parties to the suit and binds them. It is a restraint in personam. The third parties who have executed the sale deed dated 27th January, 2023, are admittedly not parties to the suit. It is therefore, clarified that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the concerned Sub-Registrar, at paragraph 6 of the impugned order will apply only with respect to the sale deeds executed by the parties to the suit i.e., CS(OS) 3432 of 2023 and not to documents executed by third parties.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal and pending applications stand disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 27, 2024/msh/aa

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

FAO(OS) 25/2024 Page 2 of 2