9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute. 4. The parties had entered into an agreement to sell their respective properties situate at 598/1, Gali Kaitwali, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, Delhi and 1241, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, Delhi for a price which was subsequently determined at ₹ 4,75,000/- and ₹ 3,25,000/- respectively. Appellant's title over the property which was owned and possessed by him appeared to be defective; although the said agreement was acted upon partially in terms whereof both the parties gave vacant possession of the property in their possession to the other. 5. However, no registered deed of sale could be executed. Respondent issued a notice on or about 21.03.1996 asking the appellant to hand over possession. Respondent thereafter filed a suit praying inter alia for the following reliefs: a) a decree for possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of shop bearing No. 1241, situated on the ground floor duly shown in red colour in Annexure 'A' forming part of building bearing No. 1241, Bazar Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. b) by means of a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant that the Defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was as to whether the defendant had any subsisting legal right to stay in occupation of the shop owned by the plaintiff and if he did not have any such right, as to whether restoration of possession could be demanded back by him as a condition precedent for surrender of possession of shop No. 1241. 10. The said question was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The High Court, however, did not stop there. It raised a question as to whether transfer of possession of the shop in possession of the plaintiff to the defendant would suffice and provide for an equitable solution without any further direction to the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for non- payment of the amount which he had to pay to the plaintiff under the agreement executed between them. The High Court noticed that the defendant was required to pay a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- to the plaintiff over and above the price specified in the agreement in respect of transferring the title and possession of shop No. 598/1 but he did not pay. The High Court, therefore, thought it fit to direct payment of suitable amount of compensation to the plaintiff. It was opined that grant of 6% interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. ( 3 ) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.--A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation.--For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action. 3 . Joinder of causes of action ( 1 ) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they arc jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. ( 2 ) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to get the same indirectly. Law in this behalf is absolutely clear. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. 18. Scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the High Court in determining an issue in an appeal filed in terms of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which would be in continuation of the original suit) and exercising the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be different. While in the former, the court, subject to the procedural flexibility has laid down under the statute is bound to act within the four corners thereof, in adjudicating a lis in exercise of its power of judicial review, the High Court exercises a wider jurisdiction. No doubt, the court in an appropriate case, even in a civil suit may mould a relief but its jurisdiction in this behalf would be confined to Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [See Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors. 2006 (10) SCALE 596 and U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479] 19. Submission of Ms. Luthra that the High Court had the requisite jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
