ANUPAMA GUPTA Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree" observed the Privy Council ( General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga under the Court of Wards v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 14 MooIndApp 605 ) 142 years ago in the year 1872.

(2.) On 7th November 1990, the decree holder had filed an execution petition. In the said execution petition, the Judgment Debtor, Mohinder Kumar raised objections, but the same were dismissed by the Learned single Judge of this court vide order dated 01.02.2002. Separate objections were also filed by the legal heir Rajinder Kumar under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC on the ground that the present decree was not passed against him. Further on the demise of Shri Dhanpat Rai, Judgment debtor, his legal heirs filed I.A. No. 4274/1999 in the main suit, under Section 28 Specific Relief Act for rescission of the Agreement to Sell on the ground of failure on the part of Decree Holder in depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,60,000/-. However, the said I.A. was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd February 2000 and this order was challenged by the legal heirs of the Judgment Debtors before the Division Bench of this Court in FAO No.110/2000. Furthermore, against the judgment dated 01.02.2002, FAO (OS) No. 66 of 2002 and EFA (OS) 4 of 2002 were filed by Judgment debtors, Mohinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar, respectively. Vide order dated 19.2.2010, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed F.A.O. No.110/2000 and F.A.O. (OS) No. 66/2002 but allowed EFA (OS) 4 of 2002. Two separate review petitions No. 210 of 2010 and 328 of 2010 were also preferred against the said judgment by the Judgment Debtors to seek review of order dated 19th February 2010. Both the review petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2011. Against the judgments dated 19th February 2010 and 25th April 2011, four Special Leave Petitions were preferred by the Judgment Debtors in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the above SLPs were consolidated as CA Nos.1873-1877 of 2014. During the pendency of these SLPs, the present appellants had filed a fresh suit vide C.S. (OS) No. 948/2013 seeking a declaration that the decree dated 30.04. 1984 was vitiated by fraud and was liable to be set aside. Vide order, dated 7th February 2014 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said four SLPs but partly allowed the appeal arising out of appeal under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, and directed the respondent No. 1 to deposit the balance sale consideration at the Circle Rate i.e. Rs. 2.15 lacs per sq. meter which comes to. Rs.15,50,15,000/-. Accordingly the said amount was duly deposited by him.

(3.) Again two separate review petitions; one by Judgment Debtor Ms. Dipti Bansal vide Review Petition No.D-1102/2014 and other by the Judgment Debtors who are appellants before this court were filed and the same were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29th April 2014. To challenge the maintainability of fresh suit filed by these Appellants, the application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed by respondent No. 1 and vide orders dated 17th July 2014 the learned Single Judge allowed this application and consequently rejected the plaint filed by these appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the Impugned order dated 17th July, 2014, the appellants filled the present appeal.