Kuldeep Kumar Khandelwal vs Raghunandan Lal Behal & others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

This civil revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Haridwar in Transfer

Application No.369 of 2018, by which the application moved by the revisionist/plaintiff (in Civil Suit No.139 of 2013) for transfer of his case to another

Court has been rejected.

The facts of this case are that initially a Suit bearing No. 13 of 2013 for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5

herein against Ms. Gauri Khandelwal and her son Vibhore Khandelwal, who are the legal heirs of late Sri Anand Khandelwal. Their case was that the

husband of respondent no. 6 and father of respondent no. 7, namely, late Sri Anand Khandelwal had entered into an agreement for sale on 16.08.2010

for a property, of which the total consideration was Rupees Two Crores Twenty Five Lakhs, out of which Rupees Seventy Lakhs were given to the

vendor i.e. Late Sri Anand Khandelwal at the time of execution of the agreement itself i.e. on 16.08.2010. It is again an admitted case that the

agreement to sale is a registered document.

Since the sale deed was not being executed, the plaintiff (in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2013) filed a suit for specific performance. Thereafter, Sri Kuldeep

Kumar Khandelwal instituted another suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.08.2010 being Suit No.139 of 2013.

It appears from the record that thereafter numerous applications have been moved before the court below particularly in Suit No.139 of 2013 at the

behest of the plaintiff/revisionist. Reference of some of the applications moved by the revisionist is as follows:-

An application was moved by the revisionist on 16.11.2017 for bringing certain amendments which was allowed by the Trial Court. Thereafter,

another application was moved on 13.12.2017 for bringing amendments in the plaint which was again allowed by the Trial Court subject to payment of

cost. Another application was moved for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which was again allowed with certain cost. Thereafter, the

defendants in Suit No. 13 of 2013 moved an application for impleadment which was also allowed by the Trial Court. Consequently, another application

was moved on behalf of the plaintiff in Suit No. 139 of 2013 for framing additional issues which was dismissed on 09.03.2018 by the Trial Court,

against which a civil revision was filed before this Court being Civil Revision No.30 of 2018, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this

Court vide order dated 27.03.2018 holding that 4 issues have already been framed by the court below and Issue No.1 is comprehensive in nature and

is sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties and therefore there is no justification for framing a new issue at this stage. Paragraph 6 of the

order dated 27.03.2018 reads as under:-

“This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned in the writ petition. Issue No.1 framed by the trial court on 29.05.2014 is

comprehensive in nature and is sufficient to effectively decide the dispute between the parties. Therefore, there is no justification for framing a new

issue at this stage.â€​

Thereafter, another application was moved by the plaintiff/revisionist for leading additional evidence which was dismissed on 17.05.2018 by the

Trial Court. Another application was moved for transfer of the case by the revisionist, a reference of which has already been given above.

The plaintiffs in Suit No.13 of 2013 filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.538 of 2017, which was disposed of by a learned

Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2017 by passing the following order:-

“Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Heard.

In continuation of this Court’s order dated 29.10.2015, the trial court is directed to decide the suit bearing No. O.S.13 of 2013 “Sewa Ram

Virmani & others Vs. Smt. Gauri Khandelwal & anotherâ€​, within a period of four months.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.â€​

Meanwhile, an impleadment/amendment application was moved by the plaintiff/revisionist before the court below which was dismissed by the court

below. The revision filed against it before this Court was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2014 and thereafter the

plaintiff/revisionist had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court, where the SLP of the revisionist was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide

order dated 17.04.2017 by passing the following order:-

“Exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

We find no merit in the Special Leave Petition.

The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, we only direct the concerned Court to consolidate the suits and hear out the same as expeditiously as possible.â€​

It is clear from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the two suits being Suit No.139 of 2013 and Suit No.13 of 2013 were to be

consolidated and Court concerned was directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

Under these directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the two suits are to proceed expeditiously before the Court below.

Not satisfied with the repeated applications and orders passed by the relevant Courts therein, an application was ultimately moved by the revisionist

before the learned District Judge, Haridwar under Section 24 of CPC, which is on record as Annexure No.1 to the present revision. In this application,

inter alia, the revisionist states that his applications were rejected by the trial court on one ground or another and thereafter in paragraph no. 5, he also

makes unfounded and vexatious allegations against the Presiding Officer as well, which has absolutely no foundation. This is nothing but pressure

tactic at the hands of the revisionist, which is gross abuse of the process of the Court and in fact it travels an area where the Court can also take

cognizance under the Contempt of the Courts Act. This process is being adopted by the revisionist purely in order to delay the proceedings. This

application has been rightly rejected by the Court below. The civil revision stands dismissed.

At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Aditya Singh made a fervent plea that the revisionist may at least be given an

opportunity to file his evidence.

Purely in the interest of justice, the revisionist is given one last opportunity to file his evidence in form of an affidavit before the court below within

3 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is issued, subject to the cost to be fixed by the trial court, and its cross-examination at the hands of

the opposite party. No adjournment shall be granted.

The Trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the matter and conclude the trial preferably within a period of three months from today. The Trial

Court is also directed to proceed with the matter on day-to-day basis and if at all any adjournment is to be given on bona fide circumstances then

powers would be exercised under Section 35B of CPC by imposing a cost. It is also further directed that considering the conduct of the revisionist, the

Trial Court shall bear in mind the provisions relating to Sections 35, 35A and 35B of CPC while proceeding in the matter so that expeditious hearing is

done in the matter.

Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to place a copy of this order before the concerned court for onward compliance.