SADHANA ARUN KOTHARI Vs. RAJ BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 14th August, 1998 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Chamber Summons No.1670 of 1997 in Suit No.4542 of 1995. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has allowed the chamber summons taken out by the respondent, who was defendant No.1 in the suit, for revoking the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent on 17th November, 1995 to the appellants/plaintiffs.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the Learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that in the suit for specific performance of a contract which was arrived at on the basis of telephonic conversation, the cause of action for filing the suit arises when the acceptance of the agreement is communicated to the proposer and secondly that when the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised while seeking revocation of the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, the appropriate procedure in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be followed which would include an opportunity to the party to lead evidence in support of the rival contentions.

(3.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the original plaintiff No.1 was resident of Mumbai and the respondent/original defendant No.1 was carrying on business in real estate, building construction and estate development in partnership as also the original defendant No.2. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent held out to the appellants that she was absolutely and exclusively entitled to full ownership of the first and second floors of the building constructed and situated on Plot No.134, Block 205-C known as 5 Babar Road, New Delhi, and that she had developed the said property in collaboration and partnership with Satija Builders and Financiers Pvt. Ltd. As the appellants were looking for a flat in a good area near Supreme Court in New Delhi, the original plaintiff No.1 on 17th February, 1995 through a broker Subhash Vig along with Raj Kumar Chawla visited the suit flat on which occasion the respondent was introduced as the owner of the flat. After inspection of the flat, having known the price of the flat and necessary modalities for completion of the deal, the original plaintiff No.1 informed the respondent that his two sons would be interested in purchasing the flat in equal shares. Having obtained the telephone numbers of the respondent, the original plaintiff No.1 assured her that he would let her know as to whether he would be interested in purchasing the flat once he reaches Bombay. On 23rd February, 1993, the appellants decided to purchase the said flat and the original plaintiff No.1 from his residence at Mumbai had telephonic conversation with the respondent, who was at the relevant time at New Delhi, and offered to purchase a flat for Rs.9 lakhs with the earnest money of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and the said deal was to be completed by 30th April, 1993. On the same occasion, the respondent instantaneously communicated to the appellants, who were at the relevant time in Mumbai, her acceptance of the said deal stating that it was final and done. On conclusion of the oral contract to purchase the suit flat, the original plaintiff No.1 on 24th February, 1993 proceeded to New Delhi and paid a sum of Rs.54,000/- to her. The original plaintiff No.1 along with him had carried a typed receipt to be obtained from the respondent as regards the proof of payment. After having read the typed receipt, one Shri Sharma, who was introduced to the original plaintiff No.1 as the partner of the respondent in her building construction, made various changes in his handwriting in a typed receipt and due to several changes in the typed receipt, the respondent informed the original plaintiff No.1 that she would dictate and get prepared a totally new receipt and accordingly a stamp-cum-memo was prepared and then signed by the respondent and handed over to the original plaintiff No.1.