Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 19 RCA DJ 68/25
Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
17.08.2026
Present: Sh. Atul Bandhu, Ld. Counsel for the appellant along
with appellant in person.
Ms. Ambika Rana, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
no.1(a) (iii) through VC.
Sh. Prashant Sodhi, Ld. Counsel for the respondents
no.1(a)(i) and (a)(ii) through VC.
Sh. Manish Phore, Ld. Counsel for the LRs of deceased
respondent no.1(b)(i) to (b)(iii) and respondent no.1(c)
through VC.
Sh. Vishal Panwar/respondent no.1(b)(iii) in person.
Respondents no.2 and 15 are already
ex-parte vide order
dated 17.04.2026.
Sh. D. S. Bangari and Sh. Abhishek, Ld. Counsel for the
respondents no.3 to 6 along with respondent no.,3(ii),
4(i), 5(ii) and 6 in person.
Service of the respondents no.7 to 14 has been dispensed
with vide order dated 17.04.2026.
1. Reply to the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent
no.1(b)(i) to 1(b) (iii) and 1(c). Copy supplied.
2. There is a pending application filed on behalf of LRs of
Sh. Ashwani Panwar i.e. respondent no.1(a)(iii) under Order 22 Rule
4 CPC. However, physical copy of the same has not been filed.
Copy of the application is already supplied to the petitioner. Copy be
also supplied to other Counsels for the respondents. Reply, if any, be
filed on or before the NDOH. The application shall be considered
on the NDOH.
RCA DJ 68/25 Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Page no.1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
3. Submissions on the stay application of the appellant
heard. Record carefully perused.
4. Present appeal has been filed against an impugned order
dated 17.03.2025 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking
declaration, mandatory injunction and specific performance in
respect of an Agreement to Sell dated 15.12.1970 was decreed. It is
the case of the plaintiff (whose LRs are now respondents no.1(a),
1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) and further their LRs) that plaintiff had purchased
the suit property which was owned by predecessor in interest of
defendants no.2 to 5 (who are respondents no.3 to 6 in the present
appeal) through duly authorized power of attorney holder i.e.
defendant no.1 before Ld. Trial Court. Present appellant is LR of
defendant no.14 before Ld. Trial Court. It was the case of the
defendant no.14 that he had purchased the suit property from
predecessor in interest of defendants no.2 to 5 vide an Agreement to
Sell dated 26.03.1990 i.e. prior to filing of the present suit by the
plaintiff. It is also the case of the appellant that the defendant no.14
had filed a suit for injunction bearing no.94/92 wherein defendants
no.2 to 4 and their attorney had appeared and given a statement
admitting the Agreement to Sell executed with the defendant no.14
and ensuring that they would not transfer the suit property to anyone
except defendant no.4. On this statement, defendant no.14 had
withdrawn his Civil Suit.
5. In the present appeal, it is alleged on behalf of the
appellant that defendant no.14 has a right in his favour qua the suit
property pursuant to Agreement to Sell dated 26.03.1990 qua which
the entire sale consideration of Rs.14 lacs has already been paid to
RCA DJ 68/25 Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Page no.2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
defendants no.2 to 5. It is submitted that in case the sale documents
are executed in favour of the LRs of original plaintiff, appellant who
is LR of defendant no.14 would suffer irreparable loss. During the
course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn
attention of the Court to the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2025
and pointed towards the fact that original Agreement to Sell relied
upon by the plaintiff was never brought on record by him or his LRs.
Accordingly, the said Agreement to Sell was not proved as per law
and on the basis of the same, a decree for specific performance
cannot be passed. It is also submitted that defendant no.14 already
had a right in his favour prior to filing of the present suit by virtue of
Agreement to Sell dated 26.03.1990, the execution of which has been
duly admitted by the defendants no.2 to 5 in suit no.94/1992. In these
circumstances, stay of the impugned judgment and decree dated
17.03.2025 is sought till the disposal of the present appeal.
6.
Per contra, the stay application has been strongly
opposed on behalf of the LRs of deceased respondent no.1 i.e. the
initial plaintiff. It is submitted that impugned judgment and decree is
a well reasoned order passed on the basis of evidence produced by
the parties before Ld. Trial Court. The plaintiff has been seeking a
right which had accrued in his favour in the year 1970 and had been
litigating before the Court for about 33 years. The basic claim of the
plaintiff was against the defendants no.1 to 5. Defendant no.1 who
was representing the defendants no.2 to 5 by virtue of a registered
Power of Attorney had admitted before Ld. Trial Court having
executed Agreement to Sell dated 15.12.1970 in favour of the
plaintiff. Defendant no.14 got himself impleaded as a party before
Ld. Trial Court on moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10
RCA DJ 68/25 Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Page no.3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
CPC. Admittedly, defendant no.14 did not initiate any litigation
against defendants no.2 to 5 either for refund of the alleged sale
consideration paid by him or for a specific performance of his alleged
Agreement to Sell dated 26.03.1990. Defendant no.14 did not lead
any evidence before Ld. Trial Court to even prove the existence of
alleged Agreement to Sell dated 26.03.1990. Even if the said
Agreement was actually executed by defendants no.2 to 5 in favour
of the defendant no.14, it was after more than 19 years of the
Agreement to Sell executed in favour of the original plaintiff. As
regards the Civil Suit for injunction bearing no.94/1992 alleged by
the defendant no.14, no proceedings in this regard were placed on
record by the defendant no.14 during the trial of the suit. Even, if the
submissions made in the Written Statement of the defendant no.14
are considered, defendant no.14 had withdrawn his suit bearing
no.94/1992 on the basis of some statement given by the defendants
no.2 to 4. It is not the case of the defendant no.14 that any decree of
any nature was passed in favour of the defendant no.14. Even, if the
alleged Agreement to Sell between defendant no.14 and defendants
no.2 to 5 dated 26.03.1990 is presumed to have been duly executed,
the remedy of the defendant no.14 lies against the defendants no.2 to
5 and the LRs of defendant no.14 have no right, title or interest to
interfere with the execution of impugned decree dated 17.03.2025. It
is also submitted that LRs of initial defendants no.2 to 5 whose
predecessors were the actual owners of the suit property were entitled
to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated
17.03.2025, if they were aggreived by it. However, no such appeal
has been filed by them. Even, in the present appeal, they have not
filed any cross-objections till date. In these circumstances, dismissal
of the interim stay application has been sought.
RCA DJ 68/25 Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Page no.4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
7. Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.3 to 6 (defendants
no.2 to 5 before Ld. Trial Court/their LRs) submits that he does not
want to make any submission regarding the impugned decreed. It is
admitted that no appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 nor the respondents no.3 to 6
wish to file any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree.
8. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused
the record. The impugned decree has been passed after a long trial of
33 years. Appellant (LR of defendant no.14) who is a stranger to the
Agreement to Sell executed between plaintiff and defendant
no.1(representing the estate of defendants no.2 to 5) is seeking the
stay of the impugned decree dated 17.03.2025 on the basis of certain
averments made in his Written Statement before Ld. Trial Court
regarding execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 26.03.1990 in his
favour by defendants no.2 to 5. It is an admitted fact on record that
defendant no.14/appellant had not led any alleged evidence to bring
on record the alleged Agreement to Sell or any previous litigation
with the defendants no.2 to 5. Appellant/defendant no.14 may have
an independent right/claim against defendants no.2 to 5. However,
appellant is a stranger to the plaintiff and the agreement qua the suit
property between the plaintiff and predecessors in interest of the
defendants no.2 to 5 through defendant no.1. The deficiencies
pointed out in the impugned judgment by Ld. Counsel for the
appellant are not sufficient to stay the execution of the impugned
decree dated 17.03.2025. This is more so, when the decree has not
been challenged by defendants no.1 to 5/their LRs against whom the
decree has actually been passed and they have no intention to file any
appeal against the decree.
RCA DJ 68/25 Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Page no.5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
9. Considering the overall facts of the case and the
discussion above, I have no hesitation in holding the no
prima-facie
case exists in favour of the appellant. Balance of convenience is also
not in favour of the appellant and the appellant has an appropriate
remedy in law against defendants no.2 to 5. Accordingly, no
irreparable loss shall be caused to the appellant in case the impugned
decree dated 17.03.2025 is not stayed. Rather, since the decree is
passed only against the defendants no.1 to 5 and not against the
defendant no.14/appellant, the maintainability of the present appeal is
in itself a question that needs to be considered and answered.
10. In view of the reasons given above, the application filed
by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC
and Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for stay of impugned judgment and
decree dated 17.03.2025 is dismissed.
11. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
12. Advance copy of the reply to the appeal be supplied to
the opposite Counsel.
13. Renotify for filing reply to the appeal and arguments on
12.10.2026.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for
information.
Copy of this order be given Dasti to the parties, as
prayed.
(Shivali Sharma)
District Judge-06, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/17.08.2026(k)
RCA DJ 68/25 Sarita Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Page no.6/6
-- 6 of 6 --