Neeraj Bhagat & ORS. v. Honey Narang

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 792/2024 NEERAJ BHAGAT & ORS.

.....Appellants Through:

Mr. Ankit Jain and Ms. Apurva Tyagi and Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate versus HONEY NARANG .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Mr. Sudhir Tewatia, Mr. Anurag Sharma and Mr.

Rachit Singh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R

% 19.11.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 67223/2024 (exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

RFA 792/2024 & CM APPL. 67224/2024 (for condonation of delay of 2110 in filing the appeal) 2.

The appellants have assailed judgment and decree dated 26.10.2018 whereby suit of the present respondent seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed against the appellants. 3.

Learned counsel for respondent on advance intimation appears and accepts notice.

4.

In the course of submissions made today, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree has also been The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 06:06:44

challenged under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and that application is pending. In response to a query as to whether the present appeal and the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can be heard parallely before this Court and before the trial court, learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1662. But the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds only that these are two concurrent remedies. That does not mean that both proceedings can run parallel to each other in the trial court and the appellate court though it is only a prima facie view subject to detailed deliberations.

5. However, learned counsel for respondent points out that the impugned judgment and decree are not ex-parte judgment and decree. According to the respondent, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed only to protract the proceedings, despite the appellants knowing fully well that the decree was not ex-parte decree.

6.

At this stage, learned counsel for appellants on instructions seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal at appropriate stage, if the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act get dismissed. 7.

Accordingly, the appeal and the accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought. GIRISH KATHPALIA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2024/as Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 06:06:44