SUYASHA VOHRA Vs. KANWALJIT BHATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kanwaljit Bhatti arrayed as opposite party 1 is a property dealer and Estate agent. Complainant No.1 is alleged to have entered into an agreement with Mr. Ajit Singh Oberoi, opposite party 2 on 3.2.94. Under the agreement opposite party 2 was to take over Institute of Human Resources Development and a nursery school impleaded as complainant Nos.2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. For this deal the said property dealer was paid a commission of Rs.50,000/-by an account payee cheque dated 4.2.94. Further case of the complainant is that the deal made with the opposite party 2 fell through. The property dealer having failed to have the deal completed was deficient in providing service as property dealer and complainant has claimed refund of the said amount with @ 24% interest and Rs.7,50,000/-on account of compensation. Kanwaljit Bhatti, opposite party 1, failed to appear but a detailed written statement was filed by opposite party 2. A rejoinder has been filed by the complainant. The complainant No.1 filed her own affidavit by way of evidence. Opposite party 2 filed his affidavit in support of his case. A written note of submissions was filed by Miss Kiran Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

(2.) None appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of hearing. We have, however, gone through the record carefully. After going through the detailed written statement filed by opposite party 2, we notice the following salient points:

(3.) The agreement dated 3.2.94, photocopy of which has been produced by the complainant, has been categorically denied by opposite party 2. He has further pleaded that the said agreement is a forged document. Whatever arrangement was entered into between the complainants and Mr. D. C. Vohra husband of complainant No.1 on the one hand and opposite party 2 on the other hand, was mutual and not through property dealer. The complainant and her husband were in occupation of first floor and second floor of the garage block of the building. According to opposite party 2 the building had been purchased by Mrs. Parminder Oberoi, wife and his two sons Tarunpal Singh and Joni Singh for Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and ten lakhs only) from the owners thereof. They had also obtained vacant possession of the portion occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Vohra and the institute and nursery school by payment of Rs.8 lakhs and some further payment to four employees who had put up small huts in various portions of the land of the building,. Reference was also made to various cases pending between opposite party 1, his wife and sons and the Vohras. We are clearly of the view that the present case involves determination of complicated and detailed facts and this task cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings