Delhi High Court Declines To Pass Summary Judgment In Reliance-Owned Company’s Plea Seeking ₹459 Crore From DDA Over Property Dispute
The Delhi High Court recently refused to pass a summary judgment in a suit moved by Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited against DDA, seeking a money decree of ₹4,59,73,61,098/- along with pendente lite and future interest over an auction property.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that since land acquisition proceedings qua the said property were declared ‘lapsed’ by a judicial order, the company ought to have first shown that the rightful owner is already in possession of the property, to claim refund of consideration amount paid by it.
“Merely because the rightful owner has not claimed possession of the ‘plot’ from DDA, will not absolve the DDA from its obligation to hand over physical possession of the plot to its rightful owner. That could happen only when plaintiff would hand over possession of the said ‘plot’ to the DDA…without offering possession of „plot‟ back to the DDA, or at least establishing that the rightful owner is already in possession of the „plot‟, the plaintiff cannot claim refund,” the bench observed.
Reliance had moved an application under Order XXIII A Rule 4 CPC for summary judgment on the ground that DDA does not have any defence or justification whatsoever to retain the amount paid by it.
The Court at the outset noted that a suit can be determined in a summary manner if the plaintiff meets the twin tests that – (a) the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and; (b) there is no such compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
Coming to the facts of the case however, the High Court observed,
“the defence put forth by the defendant cannot be said to be baseless and illusory. The summary procedure as prescribed in Order XIII-A CPC is to be resorted to by the Courts for passing of judgment in commercial disputes, where it could be disposed of without recording of oral evidence, which is not possible in the present case. Recording of oral evidence appears to be imperative as regards the issue of possession, which this Court finds to be contentious and triable.”
Significant to note that Reliance claimed to have been dispossessed from the property by its rightful owner. It claimed that since DDA had retrospectively lost its title over the land following the above mentioned judicial order, the transfer of title to Reliance itself was no longer valid and the company was entitled to a refund.
DDA on the other hand disputed the factum of dispossession and claimed that the company is still in physical control and possession of the plot. DDA also argued that after handing over possession of the land to Reliance, it had absolutely no role to play thereafter and protection of possession of the plot was the exclusive duty of Reliance.
In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the Court opined that recording of oral evidence is necessary and summary judgment cannot be passed.
The main suit is not listed before the Roster Bench on August 28.
Appearance: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Manan Shishodia, Ms. Riya Kumar and Mr. Sumer Sethi, Advs. for Plaintiff; Mr.Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsels with Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms. Smridhi Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Ms. Muskaan Garg and Ms. Neelam Preet Deol, Advs. for Defendant
Case title: Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA
Case no.: CS(COMM) 582/2021
