SAMARJIT SINGH CHATTHA Vs. FASHION FLARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.7435/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO (OS) No.177/2012 A suit was laid by respondent No.1 as original plaintiff against respondents 2 & 3 as original defendants for specific performance of a Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 24.12.2009 for sale of immovable property bearing flat No.84-D, Entire 1st floor, Malcha Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi for an apparent consideration of Rs.12.51 crore. It is the say of the original plaintiff that a sum of Rs.1.21 crore was paid to the original defendants but the amount is disputed by the original defendants who claimed only Rs.1,08,50,000.00 was received. It is, however, not disputed that as per the said Receipt-cum-Agreement the balance payment was to be made on or before 27.7.2010.

(2.) THE original defendants prior to this crucial date claim to have entered into an agreement to sell with the appellant on 7.1.2010 which culminated into a sale deed executed on 28.4.2010. THE controversy in the appeal has arisen on account of the endeavour of the original plaintiff to amend the plaint and to add the appellant as a party in the suit. THE learned single Judge in terms of the impugned order dated 13.2.2012 has allowed the application.

(3.) THE reason we have set out the aforesaid ration is that a judgement cannot be read like a statute and, thus, one has to see what is the ratio of the judgement as applicable to a given factual situation. We may usefully refer to in this behalf to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. Vs. State of T.N. & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533 where in paragraph 9 it is observed as under: