KARAN LUTHRA vs LATE SHRI M. K. SUBBA (THROUGH LRS)

Judgment text excerpt

$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 + RFA(OS) 24/2024, CM APPL. 32170/2024 KARAN LUTHRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Raunak Gupta, Advs. versus LATE SHRI M. K. SUBBA (THROUGH LRS) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Ms. Isha Ghai, Ms. Aditi Todaria, Advs. Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Hardik Vashisht, Mr. Moksh Arora, Advs. for R-1(A) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The matter has been passed over twice today. 2. On the third call, learned counsel representing the Respondent requests for a passover, which was declined by this Court. Thereafter, learned counsel representing the parties proceeded to make their submissions including learned counsel representing the Respondent.. 3. When the Court proceeded to dictate the judgment, learned counsel representing the Respondent again requests for a passover, Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2024 Signing Date:20.11.2025 Page 1 of 5 13:22:02 which is not appreciable. 4. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of a judgment dated 30.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] by the Respondent [Defendant before the learned Single Judge] was allowed and the plaint filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] was rejected. 5. A perusal of the record reflects that the Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement To Sell (‘ATS’), permanent injunction an