SUDHAKAR VERMA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the plaintiff has prayed for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, assigning, creating third party interest or from parting with possession of property No. 102-B, M.C. Bhawan, 11/56, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated are that the plaintiff and defendant were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Adhunic Constructions. Their wives were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Adhunic Technologies and M/s Passive Controls Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff and defendant fell apart and agreed to dissolve the partnership business w.e.f. 2.6.1998. A dissolution deed was executed and got registered also. On 7.6.1998 in the presence of two intermediaries a settlement was arrived at according to which property at Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh which was in the name of plaintiff and defendant was to go to the share of defendant whereas the property at Kirti Nagar which had been allotted on lease hold basis was to go to the plaintiff. In terms of the dissolution deed the defendant executed an Agreement to Sell, GPA, Special Power of Attorney, Indemnity bond etc. in respect of his share in Kirti Nagar property so that the property could be transferred to the plaintiff and the plaintiff executed a Relinquishment Deed with respect to his undivived 1/2 share in Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Property so that it could be transferred to the defendant. The plaintiff was to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,150/- to the defendant whereas the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff. It appears that some misunderstandings cropped up and as such neither the plaintiff paid the aforesaid sum to the defendant nor the defendant made payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, subsequently deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh in the Bank Account of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff it was done merely with a view to raise a plea that the defendant had acquired full rights in the Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property in terms of the Disssolution Deed. The defendant vide letter dated 24.5.1994 informed the plaintiff that he had cancelled and revoked the General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the Kirti Nagar Property and got the said document registered also on 28.4.1999. According to the plaintiff this act of the defendant was illegal and with malafide intention and amounted to repudiating the terms of the dissolution deed. In these premises the plaintiff is claiming a decree declaring that the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 21.9.1998 is liable to be cancelled and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to deliver the said Relinquishment deed to him for cancellation. He also claims a preliminary decree of partition in respect of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property and its division by metes and bounds. A decree for rendition of accounts of partnership business and a decree for damages is also prayed for. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is also based on these very grounds.

(3.) The defendant has filed written statement with a counter claim in which he prays for partition of Kirti Nagar property by metes and bounds and damages. The defendant admits the dissolution deed dated 2.6.1998 and pleads that he has performed his part of the obligations under the said deed but the plaintiff is trying to take advantage being in possession of Kirti Nagar Property. He pleads that the plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from him and executed Relinquishment Deed etc. in respect of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property but has not paid to the defendant Rs.2,25,150/- which he had agreed to pay in respect of the share of the defendant in Kirti Nagar property. According to the defendant the plaintiff has become dishonest and refused to perform his part of contract and as such he was constrained to cancel and revoke power of attorney executed by him in respect of Kirti Nagar property. He claims partition of Kirti Nagar property.