RAJENDRA GUPTA vs HEM MANOHAR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 12th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 18th May 2026 + RFA 733/2024, CM APPL. 61915/2024 (stay) & CM APPL. 61917/2024 (for additional documents) 1. RAJENDRA GUPTA S/o Late Shri Hansraj Gupta, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Shankar and Mr. Harsh Rastogi, Advocates. versus 1. HEM MANOHAR R/o 16, Johnson Close, Winthrop, Perth, 6150 WA Australia Through Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Uma Shankar Seth R/o A-2/1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-11005 ...Respondent No. 1 2. VIVITA TAYAL R/o 51, Hersperia Avenue, City Beach, Perth WA 605 Australia, Through Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Uma Shankar Seth R/o A-2/1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 ….Respondent No. 2 Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa, Mr. Sahil Gupta, Ms. Apoorva Pradhan and Mr. Siddhartha, Advocates. CORAM: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANIL RFA 733/2024 Page 1 of 26 KUMAR BHATT Signing Date:19.05.2026 18:07:49 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟), has been preferred by the Appellant, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2024, whereby the learned District Judge-04, New Delhi, allowed the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the Civil Suit filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant seeking Specific Performance of an Oral Agreement to Sell, was rejected as it failed to disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation. 2. The Plaintiff/Appellant had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 466/2023 for Specific Performance of an Oral Agreement to Sell, in respect of the property bearing House No.