Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1866 (DEL)

Sangeeta Garg v. Deepak Bansal

2007-11-06

VIPIN SANGHI

body2007
Judgment VIPIN SANGHI,J. 1. By my order dated 19.7.2007, I had allowed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint by holding that the plaintiff had failed to disclose a cause of action against the defendants to seek the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.12.2004 as novated or modified on 19.1.2005. The plaintiff has now filed I.A. 10406/2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review/recalling the aforesaid order. Plaintiffs case in the review is that even after the meeting dated 24.12.2005 the obligations of the defendant, and the modalities for fulfilling the same remained the same as they were informed vide a letter dated 14.1.2005. It has also been stated that the plaintiff never intended the defendants to change (Sic charge) the suit property in favour of ICICI Home Finance Ltd. in relation to the loan account of the plaintiff before the defendants were paid the balance consideration. The plaintiff has also averred that the stop payment instructions for the cheques dated 12.1.2005 for Rs.13,75,000/-were issued and bank drafts for Rs.18,50,000/-were prepared only because the plaintiff apprehended that the defendants may not clear their loan of Rs.20,50,000/-in relation to the property in question. The plaintiff wanted to avoid the situation wherein, even after making the payment of the entire sale consideration to the defendants, she ultimately discovers that the loan amount of Rs.20,50,000/-against the said property in the name of the defendants had not been cleared. In such a situation the plaintiff would have been deprived of a clear title to the property in question despite having paid the entire sale consideration. The plaintiff, therefore, submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 19.7.2007. 2. With regard to the averment that the modalities agreed to in the meeting dated 24.12.2005 were the same as they were informed vide their letter dated 14.1.2005, I do not find any averment to this effect in the plaint. Such modalities even if agreed do during the meeting, not having been reduced in the form of a document, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have pleaded what they were, or to have at least averred that they remained the same as what was informed to the defendant vide the letter dated 14.1.2005. Such modalities even if agreed do during the meeting, not having been reduced in the form of a document, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have pleaded what they were, or to have at least averred that they remained the same as what was informed to the defendant vide the letter dated 14.1.2005. The plaintiff cannot now in the garb of a review application introduce averments of facts not originally contained in the plaint. 3. An order can be reviewed only if at least one of the pre-conditions for the exercise of the power of Review laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC have been satisfied. I do not find any of these pre-conditions satisfied in this case. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. This application is therefore dismissed.