OM PRAKASH Vs. SANTOSH CHADDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 18th October, 2002 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.197/2001 filed by the appellant/plaintiff) insofar as declining the relief of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell of immovable property to the appellant/plaintiff, though decreeing the suit for refund of the earnest money paid by the appellant with interest.

(2.) The appeal was admitted for hearing and vide ad-interim order dated 28th January, 2003 status quo directed to be maintained with respect to the suit property. It appears that the respondent/defendant had also preferred RFA No.769/2002 against the same judgment and decree. Vide order dated 27th November, 2009 this appeal was clubbed with RFA No.769/2002 and both appeals were ordered to be heard and listed together. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on the same day made a statement that the appellant/plaintiff was not wishing to press CM No.37/2003 for interim relief and on which the earlier interim order directing maintenance of status quo was made. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed as not pressed. On 16th February, 2010 the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff stated that the only reason the appellant/plaintiff had been denied the relief of specific performance was on account of interim order passed in Suit No.1776/1998 titled Raj Kumar Chaddha Vs. Smt. Santosh Kapoor & Others and he was not aware of the outcome of the said suit; accordingly, the records of the said suit were requisitioned. On 18th February, 2011, none appeared for either of the parties and both appeals were dismissed in default. However, the appellant/plaintiff applied for restoration and which was allowed vide order dated 31st July, 2012 and the present appeal restored to its original position. No application was however filed for restoration of RFA No.769/2002 preferred by respondent/defendant against the same decree. None appeared for the respondent/defendant thereafter and vide order dated 30th August, 2013 the appeal was directed to be listed with notation in the Cause List of this Court of 'notice of default to the counsel for the respondent'. Since the file of Suit No.1776/1998was not available, the same was again requisitioned. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff was heard on 4th September, 2013 and certain queries were made from him and the matter adjourned to 6th September, 2013. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff was also requested to telephonically inform the Advocate for the respondent/defendant. The counsels were further heard on 9th September, 2013 when the respondent/defendant also appeared in person and the judgment was reserved.

(3.) The file of Suit No.1776/1998 has also been received. The file of RFA No.769/2002 since destroyed in physical form has also been called for in digital form.