OM PRAKASH Vs. AMIT CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge-09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CS No. 1202/2017. By the said order, the Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC"), seeking a direction upon the defendants to lead their evidence first. Facts

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,40,000/- alongwith interest thereupon. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 26.03.2014 with him for development and construction of a building on the suit property (property measuring 160 sq. yards, bearing property no. 11377-11378, Singhara Chowk, Nabi Karim, Idgah Road, Delhi). The plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.10,00,000/- out of the agreed consideration. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendants did not deliver possession of the suit property which was, in fact, sealed by municipal authorities. In addition to the refund of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by him alongwith interest, the plaintiff claimed damages in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is contended that although the Collaboration Agreement was executed, it was not intended to be acted upon. The plaintiff set up the defence that the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, was by way of a loan, and the Collaboration Agreement was intended to secure the repayment of the loan amount. The defendants have further averred that the suit property had already been fully developed, and that the defendant no. 1 had attempted to repay the loan amount which had not been accepted by the plaintiff. The averments contained in the plaint regarding the amount of damages and interest have also been disputed in the written statement. At this stage, the plaintiff filed the application under consideration under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC. It is contended therein that in view of the defendants' admission regarding the execution of the Collaboration Agreement, the defendants ought to be directed to lead evidence first. The application was contested by the defendants, reiterating the contents of the written statement.