JAGDISH LAL CHAWLA Vs. DES RAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.1 herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit seeking for a decree of specific performance of contract dated 3rd February, 1975. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, counsel for defendant No.1 (appellant herein), against whom a decree of specific performance of contract was sought to be passed, directing him to perform his part of the agreement, made a statement on 25th September, 2001 that there is no dispute with regard to the agreement to sell and the GPA and, as a matter of fact, he has no objection if the agreement to sell is acted upon between the parties. Delhi Development Authority was also represented on the said date by their counsel, who contended that in view of revocation of GPA by the defendant No.1 on 26th June, 1989 and also by letter dated 11th December, 1990, information of which was sent to DDA, the DDA could not convert the policy laid down by Union of India with regard to the scheme of conversion. The court further recorded that defendant No.1, through his counsel, made a statement in court that there would be no impediment in conversion of land from lease hold to free hold. The court directed that the same should be done within four weeks and if any amount is due and payable by the plaintiff, defendant DDA shall inform the same within one week whereupon payment shall be made.

(2.) It appears that defendant No.1 being aggrieved filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Single Judge for recalling the order dated 25th September, 2001. By filing the aforesaid application, the defendant No.1 wanted that the statement made by Sh.Kalra, Advocate as recorded in the order dated 25th September, 2001, be not read against him. Sh.Kalra, also filed a reply, as notice was issued to him. The said reply was supported by an affidavit filed by him, whereby he stood by the statement as it was on instructions of defendant No.1 that he made the aforesaid statement. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge found no ground to recall the order dated 25th September, 2001 and dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, an appeal (FAO (OS)396/2002) was filed which was considered by the Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench held by order dated 3rd December, 2002 that the said application (I.A.No.1152/2002) for recalling the order dated 25th September, 2001 ought to have been posted before Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijender Jain (as his Lordship was then), who had passed the order dated 25th September, 2001 and since the said order dated 4th September, 2002 was passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Gupta, the same was set aside by the Division Bench vide order dated 3rd December, 2002 with a direction that I.A.No.1152/2002 be placed before Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijender Jain.

(3.) Consequent upon the said order, the matter was again placed before Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijender Jain on 13th October, 2006 who heard the parties. It was held that in view of the affidavit filed by the counsel for defendant No.1, defendant No.1 could not take the plea that he did not instruct the counsel to make a statement on 25th September, 2001 as he is bound by the instructions given by him, on the basis of which the statement was made by the counsel on 25th September, 2001. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal was filed, on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.