PARMEET SINGH ANAND & ANR. vs SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th August 2025 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 128/2025 & CM APPL. 50251-50252/2025 PARMEET SINGH ANAND & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Agarwal, Mr. Gurkamal Arora, Ms. Ramya Aggarwal, Ms. Ananya Narain Tyagi and Mr. Kushal Gupta, Advs. versus SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava, Ms. Rishika Jain and Ms. Mansi Rose Taneja, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. This present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgement dated 06th August 2025 passed by the Ld. Single Bench of this Court in I.A.No.20016/2022, I.A.No.14311/2023 and CS (COMM) No.824/2022 titled as “Parmeet Singh Anand & Anr. v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal & Anr.” [hereinafter referred as “impugned judgement”] 2. The impugned judgement was passed in a suit for specific performance Signature Not Verified Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV FAO(OS) (COMM) 128/2025 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:21.08.2025 18:30:35 initiated by the appellants (original plaintiffs in suit). The said judgement is questioned on two counts: a. That in paragraphs 24 and 25, the directions issued to the Station House Officer (‘SHO’) are not sustainable and are in excess of jurisdiction. b. That since the amount of the consideration deposited by the plaintiffs/appellants to show his bona fides has been directed to be refunded to the plaintiffs/appellants, the Court ought to have worked out the equities in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. 3. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Counsel for plaintiffs/appellants urged that the observations in paragraphs 24 and 25 directing the SHO to condu