PUNEET GOEL vs AJAY NAGPAL & ANR.

2024-04-29 Information

$~13

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:29th April, 2024
+ CS(OS) 240/2020 & I.As. 7514/2020, 16962/2022, 16963/2022
PUNEET GOEL ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vivek Srivastava & Mr. Milind Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
AJAY NAGPAL & ANR. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Surender Chauhan, Ms. Sudha Arya & Mr. Shubham Joshi, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)

I.A. 337/2024 (u/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 & Section 21 of Specific Relief Act, 1963)

1. By way of present application, the applicant/plaintiff seeks to amend the Plaint in view of the subsequent events.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for Specific Performance of a Contract in relation to property bearing No.3/63 (Municipal No.11117), admeasuring 162.04 sq. mtrs. Built on plot No.63, Block No.3 situated in Northern City Extension Scheme No.II, commonly known as Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007, and related reliefs.
3. The plaintiff had entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 11.06.2018 with the defendants whereby it was agreed that the defendants shall demolish the existing structure and raise construction at their own cost. The plaintiff was to be allocated Upper Ground Floor with undivided ownership rights in the stilt parking and lift, whereas the rest of the constructed portion comprising of first, second and third floor along with the proportionate right in the stilt parking was to be allocated to the defendants. A period of 18 months was fixed for the execution of the Collaboration Agreement and completing the construction. It was further provided that apart from bearing the expenses, the defendant shall pay a total sum of Rs.3,25,00,000/- in the manner as detailed in the Collaboration Agreement. It was further stipulated that the defendants shall be burdened with a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- per month for the period of default beyond 14.01.2020 along with interest @ 2% per month on the defaulted amount. The defendants had further agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- at the time of signing of Agreement, Rs.40,00,000/- on 15.07.2018 when the possession was to be handed over to the plaintiff and the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- on 01.09.2018. The plaintiff has received Rs.1,10,00,000/-, but a balance amount of Rs.2,15,00,000/- which was to be paid by 15.02.2019, is still outstanding.
4. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants have utterly failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period of 18 months and to hand over the possession, despite repeated requests. A legal Notice dated 26.05.2020 has been duly served upon the defendants, despite which they have failed to complete the Collaboration Agreement. It is further asserted that at no stage have the defendants been stopped from completing the construction; however, till date the property is lying unfinished and incomplete, thereby making it impossible for the plaintiff to occupy the suit property. Also, he had shifted to a rented accommodation for which he has to incur additional expenditure.
5. Therefore, while the plaintiff had filed the suit bona fide for Specific Performance of the Collaboration Agreement, but in view of the subsequent events, there is serious apprehension that the Collaboration Agreement stands frustrated. Therefore, the plaintiff intends to add paragraph 11 (1) to 11(14) after paragraph 11 of the plaint to incorporate subsequent developments. Also, he wants to amend the Prayer paragraph and delete the sub paragraphs 1 to 4 and instead seek Termination of Collaboration Agreement, Recovery of Possession and Damages along with interest.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has appeared but no formal Reply to the present application has been filed.
7. Submissions heard.
8. The plaintiff had filed a suit for Specific Performance of the Collaboration Agreement dated 11.06.2018 and has sought directions to be issued to the defendants to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,98,70,000/- in terms of the Collaboration Agreement dated 11.06.2018 and also to make future payments.
9. However, by way of proposed amendment, he now wants to claim Termination of the Collaboration Agreement and seek Damages and compensation. In the process, the plaintiff has sought deletion of all the four substantive prayers in the original suit, to be substituted with another set of reliefs which have essentially arisen from the subsequent events during the pendency of the present suit.
10. It is quite event from the nature of the amendments which is sought to be made, that the plaintiff now wants to convert the present suit seeking relief of Specific Performance to the Declaration for Termination of the Collaboration Agreement and Damages/Compensations thereof. The nature of the suit itself changes with the proposed amendments. Even though the initial narration of the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant may be the same, but thereafter the entire suit changes. In fact, by way of present amendment the fresh cause of action is sought to be introduced by the plaintiff, which cannot be permitted.
11. The subsequent events have prompted the plaintiff to claim a set of reliefs different from the earlier suit. The plaintiff may file a fresh suit on the subsequent events after taking due permission from the Court, but by permitting the proposed amendments, the entire plaint gets substituted with a new cause of action. Therefore, the proposed amendments cannot be permitted in the present suit, which is hereby dismissed.

CS(OS) 240/2020 & I.As. 7514/2020, 16962/2022, 16963/2022
12. List before learned Joint Registrar on 21.05.2024 for completion of pleadings.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
APRIL 29, 2024
va

CS(OS) 240/2020 Page 4 of 4