AJAY KUMAR MAURYA vs SURAJ CHAUDHARY & ORS. & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1393/2025 & CM APPL. 45847-45848/2025 AJAY KUMAR MAURYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vidur Kamra, Advocate. versus SURAJ CHAUDHARY & ORS. & ORS. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and is aggrieved by order dated 03.06.2025 whereby his application moved under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs.14,02,000/-. 3. Such recovery suit is based on one agreement to sell dated 24.05.2018. 4. The abovesaid agreement was between the plaintiff and the two defendants and by virtue of the abovesaid agreement, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property of the defendants and also paid earnest money. 5. However, defendants i.e. Mr. Suraj Chaudhary and Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, despite the abovesaid agreement to sell and despite taking the earnest money, refused to take further needful action and it was in the abovesaid backdrop that the plaintiff had to file a suit seeking recovery of his earnest money. 6. Both the sides have already led their respective evidence and when the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1393/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:01.08.2025 11:13:36 case was at the stage of final arguments, plaintiff moved the abovesaid application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of Mr. Nathan Chaudhary, father of both the abovesaid two defendants. 7. According to him, when the defendants entered into witness box, they denied having any personal knowledge of the case and deposed that the documents in question, including the written statement, had been signed by them, at the instance of their