VASANTI BHAT versus PREMLATA AGARWAL & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1148 · Decided: 22-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 10 S.C.R. 1148 
VASANTI BHAT 
v. 
PREMLATA AGARWAL & ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8202-8205 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Interim Orders: 
c 
Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against 
developer - Single Judge of High Court directing not to 
register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which 
was not subject matter of the suit - Notion of Motion by 
appellant - Interim order recalled - Appeals - Division Bench 
0 of High Court staying operation of order of Single Judge and 
directing the money deposited by plaintiff and appellant with 
developer to the credit of one of the suits and to be invested 
in FD - Held: Division Bench of High Court while deciding 
the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power and jurisdiction 
E in commenting on the conduct of the appellant stating that she 
approached the court on the basis of false and fabricated 
documents - When the main suits are pending, particularly, 
the appellant is a stranger in the pending suits, such 
observation is not warranted and, as such, is deleted - The 
developer having deposited the money as directed by High 
F Court, it safeguards the interests of plaintiff - Trial Court 
directed to decide the suits on merit - Administration of justice 
- Strictures. 
The plaintiff-respondent no. 1, on 27 .1.2009, filed four 
G suits against defendant-respondent no. 2 developer, for 
specific performance of agreement of sale with regard to 
four flats. The single Judge of the High Court by order 
dated 10.2.2009 appointed a Court Receiver in respect of 
flat No. 703, which was not shown as suit property in any 
H 
1148 
VASANTI BHAT v. PREMLATA A AGARWAL & ANR.1149 
ETC. 
of the suits, and flat no. 801, and directed respondent no. A 
2 not to execute or register agreement or create third party 
rights in respect of the said two flats, and by order dated 
20.3.2009 directed the Court Receiver to seal the suit flats 
and communicate the same to the appellant. The 
appellant filed Notice of Motion in one of the four suits B 
before the High Court praying for setting aside the orders 
dated 10.2.2009 and 20.3.2009. It was the case of the 
appellant that out of a total sale consideration of Rs.39 
lacs for flat no. 703, she had paid Rs. 38 lacs to 
respondent no. 2 developer pursuant to a sale agreement C 
and had been issued a possession letter on 30.9.3008. 
The single Judge by order dated 18.3.2010 set aside the 
orders dated 10.2.2009 and 20.3.2009 and directed the 
Court Receiver to return the possession of flat no. 703 
to the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed appeals. 0 
During the pendency of the appeals, as directed by the 
High Court, respondent no. 2 deposited Rs.98 lacs which 
had been paid by the appellant and respondent no. 1. The 
Division Bench ultimately allowed the appeals and set 
aside the order dated 18.3.2010 and directed transfer of 
the amount deposited by respondent no. 2, to the credit E 
of Suit no. 251 of 2009 and to be kept invested in an FD. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is significant to note that the main suits F 
are pending and any decision in respect of the issues 
raised by the parties would undoubtedly affect the 
ultimate stand of the parties and will have bearing on the 
suits. The Division Bench of the High Court while 
deciding the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power 
and jurisdiction in commenting on the conduct of the G 
appellant stating that she approached the court on the 
basis of false and fabricated documents. When the main 
suits are pending, particularly, the appellant is a stranger 
in the pending suits, such observation is not warranted 
and is, therefore, deleted. [para 6] [1155-C-F] 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [2012] 10 S.C.R. 
1.2. Pursuant to the orders of the High Court, the 
developer has deposited a sum of Rs. 98 lakhs which 
safeguards the interest of respondent No.1. It is, 
therefore, directed: 
(i) The trial court before which the suits have been 
transferred from the original side of the High Court 
shall dispose of the suits within a period of one year. 
(ii) The deposited amount of Rs.98 lakhs invested in 
a Nationalized Bank be renewed periodically and 
disbursed subject to the orders of the court 
concerned. 
(iii) The trial court shall decide the issue on merits on 
the basis of the materials to be placed before it. 
(iv) The trial court shall adhere to the time schedule 
an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.