SANJAY SINGH AND ANR. versus CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 21-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
SANJAY SINGH AND ANR.
v.
CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1928 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Suit – Recovery of money – Appellants booked a residential
flat whereupon a villa was to be constructed by the respondent –
Total consideration for villa was Rs.15,65,000/- – According to
appellants they paid all the installments – Thereafter, appellants
received demand notice from respondent for payment of balance
consideration of Rs. 5,13,850/- towards principal sum and interest
amounting to Rs.3,61,460/-, the total being Rs.8,73,556/- – Pursuant
thereto, respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of the said
amount which was dismissed – In First appeal, High Court condoned
the delay of 721 days and directed appellants to deposit Rs. 5,13,850/
- in Court, and further directed respondent to handover the
possession of the villa to appellant – However, High Court reversed
its earlier order and directed to release the amount of Rs.5,13,850/
- and the possession of villa back to respondent – On appeal held:
There was no reason for the High Court to direct reversal of the
situation – Further,  there was no satisfactory explanation for
condoning delay of 721 days – In the totality of circumstances,
High Court erred in condoning delay – Thus, order of the High
Court condoning delay set aside and consequently, first appeal also
dismissed – Besides that, possession of villa directed to continue in
possession of the appellants and amount of Rs.5,13,850/- deposited
in the Court to be made over to the respondent along with interest
accrued – Delay/Laches.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. In the instant case, that the High Court in its
order dated 16.04.2018 had sought to bring about a situation
where the area of controversy could be minimized and at the same
time the possession of the villa could be made over the appellant.
Appellant was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 856
856
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
857
of Rs.5,13,850/- in the Court and upon same being deposited,
the respondent-company to hand over the possession of the Villa.
The next order dated 23.05.2018 shows that the appellants had
deposited the sum as indicated and the possession was agreed
to be handed over by the respondent by 15.07.2018.  The
possession of the villa was actually handed over. Thereafter, the
matter came up before the High Court on 25.07.2018.  The High
Court accepted the explanation for condonation of delay and
condoned the delay of 721 days, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.20,000/- to be made over by the respondent to the appellants.
The High Court also observed that subject suit since was filed
for recovery of money and the same was dismissed and the appeal
was against that decree, by an interim order the appellant cannot
receive possession of the disputed Villa constructed by
respondents. Further, High Court ordered to release the amount
deposited back to the respondents along with accrued interest.
In the circumstances, the question for consideration is whether
the High Court was justified in reversing the situation. In terms
of the understanding between the parties as recorded in the
earlier orders of the High Court, there was no reason
for the High Court to direct reversal of the situation.
[Paras 11 and 14][862-BC; 861-A-E; 862-C-D]
2. The delay to the tune of 721 days was condoned by the
High Court when there was no satisfactory explanation. There
was gross negligence on part of the respondent and the
explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation does
not appear to be correct.  Taking totality of the circumstances,
the delay ought not to have been condoned by the High Court.
Therefore, the submission of the appellants is accepted. The order
condoning delay is set aside.  Consequently, the First Appeal
also stands dismissed.  [Para 15][862-D-E; F-G]
3. However, considering the developments that have taken
place while the appeal was pending in the High Court, it is
directed: a) The possession of the villa which was handed over
to the appellants in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2018 shall
continue to remain with the appellants and be taken to be in terms
of the Agreement entered into between the parties; b) The
amount of Rs.5,13,850/- deposited by the appellants in the
SANJAY SINGH AND ANR. v. CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND
DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
858
SUPREME COURT 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.