ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA Vs. PARTIK ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs inter-alia seeking a decree of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 7th October, 2015 entered into between the plaintiffs and late Satish Arora and defendant Nos.4 and 5 and further directions to defendant Nos.7 to 9 to confirm the Agreement to Sell dated 7th October, 2015 by signing the said agreement as a witness as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 6th May, 2015 and complete the construction, hand over the possession and execute a sale deed of the second floor of the property bearing No.5/22, Roop Nagar, Delhi (in short 'the suit property'), or in the alternate refund the sale consideration of Rs. 3,85,05,374/- along with the interest @24% per annum, damages and compensation and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their legal heirs, attorneys from selling, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

(2.) Plaintiffs in the suit have impleaded Pratik Arora, Poonam Arora and Shruti Arora, the legal heirs of late Satish Arora as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively, Alok Nanda as Proprietor of Immarat Construction as defendant No.4, Akhil Nanda, Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Makker, Rajesh Anand, Anju Anand and Gagan Makker as defendant Nos.5 to 9 respectively.

(3.) Summons in the suit were issued on 19th May, 2017 whereafter the defendants entered appearance. As the defendants No.1 to 3 failed to file the written statements despite opportunity their right to file written statement was closed. Written statement of defendants No.4 and 5 was taken off the record due to the delay in filing the written statement being not condoned. Thus the written statement only on behalf of defendant Nos.6 to 9 is on record. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 had also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by this Court on 31st January, 2018 on the ground that the stage to look into the pleas had not reached and could be seen at the stage of framing of issues when written statements of the parties were on record. The suit is at the stage of settling the issues when learned counsel for the defendants No.6 to 9 prays for rejection of the plaint whereas learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in the absence of written statements of defendants No.1 to 5 being not on record.