KAMALJIT KAUR Vs. RANJAN TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, under Order VII Rule 11 and Order X read with Section 35-A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed and pressed on behalf of Defendants 1 and 2 for the rejection of the plaint. The facts pertaining to the dispute between the parties is that on the insistence of the sisters, Defendants 4 to 7 herein, she had executed Vakalatnama and Written Statement as well as an application for extension of time in the previous proceedings. Consequent upon the nontraverse of the statements made in Suit No. 1446/95, which was for passing of a decree of Specific Performance, this prayer was granted and possession of the property in suit had also been received by the Applicants/Defendants 1 and 2 herein. Documents of title have also been executed in favour of these Defendants. By way of the present suit the plaintiff has sought to render at nought the previous decree by staling that she was unaware of the import and significance of the documents and pleadings earlier signed by her. It is not in dispute that the respective sale consideration of Defendants 4 to 7 has been duly received by them. Along with the application the Agreement to Sell between the Applicants/Defendants 1 and 2 and Shri Nanak Singh Lamba, the father of the other Defendants, has been filed, together with the Certificate issued under Section 269 UL(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Form 34 A. The orders passed in previous suit No. 1446/95, already mentioned above, in which the present Plaintiff was a Defendant have also been filed. On 26.6.1995 the heirs of late Shri Nanak Singh Lamba had been restrained from creating any third party interests in the suit property. A Local Commission was duly executed by Shri Rajindra S. Chagger, Advocate on 27.6.1995 when the Plaintiff was present. She, therefore, had personal knowledge of the pendency of the previous suit and also of the points of contention which had arisen therein. It was on the basis of the non-traverse of the plaint that the suit was disposed of on October 30, 1995. Since the prior formalities necessary to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the present Applicants/Defendants 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff and her sisters (the remaining Defendants in these proceedings) was not completed, the application for extension of time was made by the present Plaintiff. These applications were allowed. The undertaking and an indemnity bond executed by the Defendant dated 9.9.1996 has also been filed along with this application. Although a Reply has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, there was no representation made on her behalf, although the matter was argued before Court for considerable time. It is not in dispute that the siblings of the Plaintiff have received their respective shares. In the Reply it has been stated, inter alia, that "the papers were hurriedly got signed from the Defendant including the Plaintiff and were filed before the Hon'ble Court. All actions were so arranged within 4 months of the filing of the suit i.e. in October 1995, the -decree was obtained by the Defendants I and 2 from the Hon'ble Court." The further objection taken in this Reply is that the Court ought to have noticed, that since the nonapplicants " were admitting the averments of the plaint filed by Defendants No. 1 and 2 what was the necessity for Defendants No. 1 and 2 to file the suit. On the other hand the Hon'ble Court should have held that when all the defendants, including that of the Plaintiff as alleged, were totally admitting the suit of the defendant, there was no cause of action for them to file the present suit and the suit ought to have been dismissed merely on this short ground alone". It is further averred in this Reply that the filing of the suit by the present Applicant was only intended to gain time in depositing the amount of the sale consideration and that resultantly, the amount which was to be paid in May 1994, i.e. at the time of the execution of the alleged Agreement to Sell, was ultimately deposited in January 1997. Thereafter accusations have been made by the present Plaintiff against her sisters. The contents of the Reply on behalf of the Plaintiff were perused in spite of the fact that no representation was forthcoming on her behalf.'

(2.) From a consideration of the Written Statement filed by the present Plaintiff and her subsequent conduct and participation in the proceedings in the previous suit, I am fully satisfied that she was aware of the nature of those proceedings. I am also satisfied that she had signed the pleadings as well as subsequent applications and an Undertaking and Indemnity Bond fully aware of the nature of these documents. Since these were signed over a period of time it could hardly be gainsaid by the Plaintiff that she was hoodwinked into signing them or that she was unaware of their significance. The submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant/Defendants 1 and 2, that the present suit for declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction has been filed by the Plaintiff only to extort further money from Defendants 1 and 2 appears to me to be perfectly tenable. It is perhaps for this reason that there was no appearance on behalf of Plaintiff when the suit was called on for hearing. The Court was foully empowered, and' in the circumstances of the case justified, in dismissing the suit in default. However, since arguments were heard at length I am of the view that the proper course would be to accept this application under Order VII Rule 11 and reject the plaint. Since I am also convinced that the plaint is mala fide and calculated to pressurise the Applicants/Defendants 1 and 2 to succumb to payment of additional money, I consider it appropriate to allow the present application, thereby dismissing the suit, with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000.00 Ordered accordingly.

(3.) All the pending I.As. and the suit stand disposed of.