SUSHIL KUMAR JINDAL Vs. REST HOUSE DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This review petition is filed praying this Court to review the order of this Court dtd. 15/3/2024 passed in M.F.A.No.181/2024 c/w M.F.A.No.173/2024 and M.F.A.No.211/2024, wherein challenge was made before this Court for granting temporary order of injunction in O.S.No.5438/2023. This Court having considered the submission of both the learned counsel, passed a detailed order on 15/3/2024 confirming the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the M.F.As.

(3.) The main ground urged in the review petition is that the consideration of Rs.4.00 Crores was paid and the same has not been disputed. The material also discloses that the amount vest with the respondent to certain extent and apart from that, the dispute is with regard to the non-withdrawal of Rs.12,26,59,601.00. The learned counsel contend that Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief Act is clear with regard to the seeking of better relief and Sec. 19 of the Contract Act. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Article 59 of the Limitation Act and Sec. 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel contend that the very document of separation of settlement deed is not pleaded in the plaint and also not brought to the notice of this Court the very approach of the respondent herein in approaching the Court while seeking the relief of discretionary relief of temporary injunction. The learned counsel contend that when the suit itself is not maintainable and when the prima facie case is not made out, ought not to have granted the relief of temporary injunction. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the grounds which have been urged in paragraph No.7 of the memorandum of petition and categorically contend that the documents of Annexures - P, Q, R, S and T1, which were filed along with M.F.As. were not considered while passing the order. Those documents were also placed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court made an observation that no such documents are placed before the Court. In view of production of those documents, which have not been considered by this Court, this Court can invoke the review provision invoking Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-U, copy of the relevant portion of Form No.26AS of M/s. Jindal Steels for the assessment year 2013-14, which shows that the respondent even remitted TDS on 14/9/2013 after late Mohanlal Jindal retired from the respondent on 24/7/2013 and when such TDS is made, now cannot contend that no such sale consideration has been paid. The learned counsel contend that for a period of more than a decade they kept quiet with regard to the non-payment of sale consideration and all these aspects have not been considered by this Court while passing the order. Hence, the review jurisdiction has to be exercised.