TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 1 of 21

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 21

st

April, 2026

Pronounced on: 29

th

May, 2026

+ TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 & CM APPL. 16961/2026

SUPER DISCO ISPAT PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta and Mr. Trivesh

Sharma, Advocates.

versus

RAVI AND SINGH COMMUNICATION .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Rishi Raj Sharma, Ms. Sonakshi Singh,

Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Mr. Naman

Kumar and Mr. Subhash Chand,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1

, seeks the following prayers: -

“a) Allow the present Petition and transfer the C.S.(COMM.) No.

836/2025 titled as 'Ravi and Singh Communication Vs. Super Disco Ispat

Pvt. Ltd.' pending before the Court of Ld. District Judge (Commercial

Court-01), North - West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi to this Hon'ble

Court to be tried and adjudicated alongwith C.S.(COMM.) No. 137/2026

titled as 'Super Disco Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ravi and Singh Communication &

Ors.' pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of

justice:

1

For short, ‘CPC’

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 2 of 21

b) Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the

Respondents, in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are as

under:-

i. The petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement to sell

dated 01.09.2020 (‘ATS’) for sale and purchase of industrial

properties being F-47 & G1-84, Industrial Area, Chopanki,

Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan, measuring 3323 square meters, for sale

consideration of Rs.5.55 Crores out of which, an advance amount

of Rs.1.10 crores, being 20% of the total consideration was paid

by the respondent to the petitioner. It is the case of the

respondent that, as per the terms and conditions of the ATS, prior

to execution of registered sale deed by 26.11.2020, the petitioner

was required to clear its bank liability qua the aforesaid property,

and obtain NOC from the lender bank as well as other State

authorities/agencies and also keep the original title documents

and other records pertaining to the aforesaid property such as

allotment letter, possession letter, payment proofs, etc. ready for

delivery to the respondent.

ii. The dispute arose between the parties and consequently, the

respondent herein instituted a civil suit, CS(OS) No. 48/2021, in

Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (for short, ‘OOCJ’) of this

Court for recovery Rs.1,16,60,000/- along with interest @ 18%

p.a. paid by it to the petitioner/defendant in pursuance of

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 3 of 21

Agreement to Sell dated 01.09.2020, till payment/realization as

well as damages of Rs.2.20 Crores being double the advance sale

consideration amount. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an

application stating that the subject property in question is an

industrial property and by virtue of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit is commercial in nature,

and therefore, the same in the said form of ordinary suit was not

maintainable. Accordingly, on 19.08.2025, the respondent

withdrew the aforesaid suit instituted before OOCJ of this Court,

and instituted a commercial suit, C.S.(Comm.) 836/2025, on

24.01.2025 for recovery of advance amount of Rs.1,61,15,000/-

along with interest @ 9% p.a. till payment/realization as well as

damages of Rs. 22 lakhs before the learned District Judge,

Commercial Court, Rohini Courts Delhi. In the said suit, the

pleadings are complete and the same is now listed for framing of

issues and case management proceedings.

iii. The petitioner, on the other hand, on 05.04.2025 instituted a suit,

CS(OS) No. 229/2025, in OOCJ of this Court seeking recovery

of Rs.4,18,90,674.54/- Crores against the respondent on the

following grounds: -

(a) the subject property was sold to third party at a

lower price, and the respondent is bound to pay the deficit

sale consideration;

(b) since respondent did not go ahead with the

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 4 of 21

execution of sale deed, the petitioner was unable to pay its

loan liabilities to the bank, and consequently, the bank has

imposed hefty interest liability on the petitioner which the

respondent is duty bound to pay.

iv. No notice was issued in the aforesaid suit, and it was finally

withdrawn on 09.01.2026.

v. Thereafter, on 10.02.2026, the petitioner filed a commercial suit

against the respondent before OOCJ of this Court, being

C.S.(Comm.) 137/2026, which is currently pending before the

Worthy Registrar of this Court for completion of pleadings.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks transfer of

respondent’s suit being, C.S. (Comm.) No. 836/2025, pending before the

Rohini Courts to this Court to be adjudicated along with suit, C.S.(Comm.)

No. 137/2026, instituted on his behalf before OOCJ of this Court on the

ground that the dispute between the parties in both the suits arise out of same

set of facts and transactions between them, and it is submitted that the same

are based on an ATS dated 25.07.2020 and subsequent agreement dated

01.09.2020 entered into between the parties in respect of subject properties

situated in Rajasthan. It is pointed out that since the disputes in both the

matter relate to same transaction, same payment history, identical allegations

regarding breach of terms, and non-performance of contractual obligations.

Therefore, the cause of action involved in both the suits are substantially the

same.

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 5 of 21

4. It is further submitted that the parties are relying upon the same

documents, and witnesses in both the matters would be substantially the same

and will overlap with each other. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of

proceedings and conflicting findings, it would be in interest of justice, if the

suit instituted by the respondent, and pending before the Rohini Courts is tried

along with the suit instituted by the petitioner before OOCJ of this Court,

together.

5. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the

following judgments: -

i. Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement

2

(paras 9 and 10);

ii. Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care

(P) Ltd.

3

(paras 4 and 5);

iii. Purna Chandra Mahanty and Others v. Samanta Radhaprasana

Das

4

(paras 2, 8 and 9);

iv. S.C. Jain v. Bindeshwari Devi

5

(paras 2, 3.9, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 8.2.2);

and

v. Harjeet Singh Maini v. Paramjit Singh Maini

6

; (paras 24, 25 and

26)

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the cause of

actions of both the suits instituted by the parties are completely different. The

2

(2004) 3 SCC 85

3

(2004) 6 SCC 756

4

1952 SCC OnLine Ori 57

5

1997(42) DRJ

6

ILR(2008) II Delhi 1039

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 6 of 21

respondent by way of his suit instituted on his behalf seeks recovery of

advance money of Rs.1,16,60,000/-, whereas the petitioner is seeking

recovery of unforeseeable damages referring to remote and indirect losses. In

these circumstances, it is submitted that the issues, witnesses, evidence, etc.,

to be led in both the suits would be completely different.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the

outcome of the respondent’s recovery suit is independent of the outcome of

the suit instituted on behalf of the petitioner, inasmuch as if the respondent’s

recovery suit fails, it will be in a position to successfully defend the suit filed

by the petitioner, which is based on unforeseeable damages referring to

remote and indirect losses. In these circumstances, it is pointed out that the

defence of the parties in both the suits are independent.

8. It was next contended that the commercial suit instituted and pending in

Rohini Courts on behalf of the respondent is prior in time. Said suit was filed

on 24.11.2025 and the suit documents were served to the petitioner on

05.01.2026. Whereas, the commercial suit pending before this Court instituted

on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 10.02.2026, and notice was received

by the respondent in said suit on 12.02.2026. It is also pointed out that the

commercial suit pending in this Court was not filed as a counter-claim but a

separate suit demonstrating that the issues in both the suits are unrelated

and/or unconnected. It was further contended that the petitioner in his suit

relies on two ATS dated 25.07.2020 and 01.09.2020, however, the respondent

contends that only one ATS was executed.

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 7 of 21

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent further contends that the

respondent has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of

the commercial suit filed by the petitioner before this Court including non-

compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as well as

the same being barred by limitation. It is pointed out that the respondent has

already filed an appropriate application in the said suit under Order VII Rule

11 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the same is pending adjudication. It

is further submitted that given the huge pendency of cases in this Court,

commercial suit will take a long time to conclude, and before the Rohini

Courts, pleadings are already complete and the matter is now fixed for

framing of issues and case management hearing. In these circumstances, it is

contended that the present petition is frivolous and abuse of process of Court

and is solely an attempt to delay/derail proceedings in the recovery suit

instituted by the respondent.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of

learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Delhi Public School Society and

Anr. v. Vijay Jyoti Bakshi

7

, and particularly, on paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 24,

28 and 29.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior

Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

12. The relevant averments along with reliefs sought in the suit, CS

(COMM) No.836/2025, instituted on behalf of the respondent and pending

7

2024 SCC OnLine Del 6055: (2024) 313 DLT 75

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 8 of 21

the Rohini Courts read as under: -

“8. That accordingly the parties entered into an agreement to sell

dated 01.09.2020 wherein all the important terms and conditions

were mentioned. Some of the important terms of the agreement to

sell dated 01.09.2020 are mentioned herein below:

a) That the defendant was required to obtain NOC from

RIICO for sale of the industrial plot to the plaintiff.

b) The defendant was required to obtain NOC from DIC,

bank, JWNL, Sales Tax department, Excise department,

Provident Fund, and ESI, etc.

c) The defendant was required to keep PMT regularisation

certificate and original title documents and other record

pe1iaining to the prope1iy such as allotment letter, possession

letter, payment proof etc. ready for delivery to the plaintiff

after clearing bank liability.

*** *** ***

11. That during this period the plaintiff was assured by the

defendant that the needful shall be done by the defendant in

time and that he shall keep the plaintiff informed about the

same. The plaintiff also sent a WhatsApp Message on

23.11.2020 at 6:52PM notifying the defendant to keep all

necessary documents/ NOC's, etc. ready for execution and

registration of sale deed on 26.11.2020.

12. That the plaintiff has always been possessed of, and capable to

pay the balance sale consideration, and has throughout been ready

and willing to perform its part of agreement to sell dated

01.09.2020. Accordingly, the plaintiff got prepared two demand

drafts being demand draft No.512424 for Rs.2,45,00,000/ - dated

25.11.2020 and demand draft No.512425 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- dated

25.11.2020, both drawn on ICICI Bank, Connaught Place, New

Delhi, total amounting to Rs.4,45,00,000/- being the balance sale

consideration, and informed the defendant about the same, and

requested the defendant to perform its part of agreement to sell

dated 01.09.2020, and execute registered sale deed of the said

industrial property in favour of the plaintiff on 26.11.2020 in

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 9 of 21

pursuance to agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020.

13. That to the surprise of the plaintiff, the defendant sent a

WhatsApp message on 25.11.2020 at 6:53PM calling upon the

plaintiff to send copy of demand draft so that the defendant's

duly authorised representative is available for registration of

sale deed on 26.11.2020.

14. That the plaintiff immediately sent a reply WhatsApp

message dated 25.11.2020 at 7 :46PM communicating its

readiness and willingness, and also attached copies of the two

demand drafts for Rs.4,45,00,000/- and, also notified to ensure

defendant's presence for registration of sale deed on 26.11.2020.

15. That the plaintiffs partner namely Shri Suresh Singh

accordingly made himself available at the office of the Sub-

Registrar concerned at Bhiwari, District Ajmer, Rajasthan, for

execution and registration of sale deed on 26.11.2020. Repeated

messages were sent to the defendant to come forward for execution

and registration of sale deed in terms of agreement to sell dated

01.09.2020, but in spite of the same, no one from the side of the

defendant turned up at the Sub- Registrar's office, although the

plaintiff waited there till about 6:00PM. The plaintiff also obtained

necessary receipt dated 26.11.2020 from the office of the Sub-

Registrar. It may not be out of place to mention here that as an

after-thought the defendant sent a WhatsApp Message on

25.11.2020 at about 11:48 PM, in the late night which came to

the notice of the plaintiff only later on. A perusal of the same

clearly shows that the defendant has totally failed to perform its

part of agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020, and that the

intentions of the defendant were dishonest since the beginning,

in as much as, the defendant never raised any objection

whatsoever at any time prior to its last WhatsApp message

dated 25.11.2020, sent late night at 11:48 PM. As already

submitted the defendant requested for a higher amount as advance

on the plea of clearing its bank liability and get the property

released from mortgage, and take back original documents form his

bank. It was for this reason that the plaintiff paid a sum of

Rs.1,10,00,000/- as advance being 20% of the total sale

consideration, as against 10% advance, which is normally paid in.

property transactions. Also, the plaintiff was never informed about

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 10 of 21

the particulars of the defendant's bank, nor was informed about the

quantum of loan/ liabilities. It is also mentioned that the

WhatsApp message as sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on

25.11.2020 at 6:53 PM only talks about the remaining balance

consideration of Rs. 4,45,00,000/- for execution and registration

of the sale deed for the said industrial property. Had there been

any other issue the defendant would have raised it in the said

message. A perusal of the agreement to sell would show that the

clearance of the bank liability and obtaining NOC from the bank

was the obligation on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff seeks

permission of the Hon'ble Court to read/ refer to the relevant part of

the agreement at the time of hearing in this regard.

*** *** ***

21. That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in or about August,

2020, when the defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to

sell the said industrial property to the plaintiff. It further arose,

when believing the representations made by the defendant, the

plaintiff agreed to purchase, the said industrial property, and the

parties entered into an agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020. It further

arose, when the plaintiff made payment of a higher mnom1t of Rs.

1,10,00,000 /- as advance being almost about 20% of the total sale

consideration on the specific request of the defendant to enable him

to clear its bank liabilities and get the property discharged from

mortgage and take back original documents from its bank. It further

arose, when the plaintiff sent a WhatsApp message dated

23.11.2020 to the defendant thereby informing about the readiness

and willingness of the plaintiff to perform its obligation under the

said agreement to sell, as also requesting the defendant to be

available for execution and registration of the sale deed on

26.11.2020. It again arose, when the defendant vide its message

dated 25.11.2020 asked the plaintiff to send copies of the demand

draft for the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,45,00,000/-. It

further arose, when the plaintiff immediately sent a reply message

dated 25.11.2020, showing its willingness for execution of the sale

deed, and also attached copies of two demand drafts, for the

balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,45,00,000/-. It further arose,

when the defendant sent a belated e-Mail dated 25.11.2020 with

malafide intentions and further failed to make its authorized

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 11 of 21

representative present at the office of the sub registrar concerned on

26.11.2020, in spite of repeated requests an reminder it arose on

various dates when it transpired that the plaintiff has been duped by

the defendant by making false and frivolous representations of

transferring clear title in the said industrial property after clear the

loan/liability of defendant's bank knowing fully well that

defendant's bank liability is more than Rs. 9,00,00,000/- and

defendant cannot clear the same even if the entire sale

consideration is paid to the bank, it arose on various dates when the

plaintiff pursued the matter with the defendant but the defendant

harass and cause mental agony to the plaintiff and as such became

liable for damages. It again arose on 02.01.2021, when the

defendant expressed its inability to execute the sale deed and

fu1iher refused to refund the advance with interest and pay

damages for causing harassment and mental agony to the plaintiff

and delaying the project of the plaintiff. It lastly arose in

January/February-2025 when the plaintiff got to know about the

suit property had been sold by defendant to third party sometime in

November/December-2022, without informing the Hon'ble High

Court or the plaintiff. The said cause of action is continuing and

still subsists.

22. That the defendant has its registered office at Sector-3,

Rohini, Delhi where also the negotiations for sale of industrial plots

took place and where the advance amount was paid, which is

situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

Thus, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the

present suit.

23. That the present suit is within the limitation period as

prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the plaintiff has

honestly and bonafidely pursuing the aforesaid suit CS (OS) No.

48/2021 before Hon'ble High Court from 13.01.2021 till

19.08.2025, the said period shall be excluded from limitation by

virtue of Sec. 14 of Limitation Act 1963. Therefore, the present

claim of the plaintiff is within limitation period.

*** *** ***

28. In the interest of justice, and ln the facts and circumstances of

the present case, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 12 of 21

Court be pleased to: -

a) Pass a decree for recovery of the advance amount paid by the

plaintiff to the defendant in pursuance to Agreement to sell dated

01.09.2020 of Rs. 1,61,15,000 /- (inclusive of interest@ 9% p.a.

from 01.09.2020 till 31.10.2025), along with pendente lite and

future interest at the same rate till realisation in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

b) Pass a decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 22,00,000/- being

20% of amount of advance paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in

pursuance to Agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020, along with

pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realisation in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

c) Costs of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff as against the

defendant.

d) Such other further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be

also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. Similarly, relevant averments along with reliefs sought in the suit, CS

(COMM) No.137/2026, instituted by the petitioner before OOCJ of this

Court read as under: -

“8. That the Defendants by carrying out due diligence with regards

to Plaintiffs title and entitlement in Industrial Plots No. F-47 & G1-

84, Industrial Area, Chopanki, Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan measuring

3323 Sq. Meters including already title deeds are mortgaged with

bank and Plaintiff intends to discharge the bank liability, was in

dire needs of funds, following events occurred:

a. Agreement handwritten duly signed by the parties and witness

was entered on 25.07.2020 by the intervention of Defendants'

agents, which records sale consideration agreed at Rs. 5,55,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Crore Fifty-Five Lakhs Only); period for completion

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 13 of 21

of transaction agreed for 3 months; a cheque No. 391650 of Rs.

55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Only) drawn on IDBI Ltd

was given by Defendants.

b. On 29.07.2020 the aforesaid cheque was returned unpaid on

account of "Stop Payment".

c. Thereafter Defendants persuaded the Plaintiff and assured to

enter into Agreement after receiving earnest money equivalent to

20% of agreed Sale Consideration and transferred the following

amount:

(i) Rs. 35,00,000/ on 05.08.2020;

(ii) Rs. 20,00,000/ on 06.08.2020;

(iii) Rs. 50,00,000/ on 24.08.2020;

(iv) Rs. 5,00,0001 on 24.08.2020.

d. On 01.09.2020 Agreement to Sell was entered on a Non-

Judicial Stamp Paper of Rajasthan containing various stipulations

which includes balance payment was to be made by or before

26.11.2020, relevant clause No. 4 to 7 are reproduced below:

(I) Clause 4. It is agreed that all the expenses for

registration of sale-deed in favour of the buyer or its

nominees shall be borne by the buyer.

(II) Clause 5. It is agreed that buyer can get sale-deed

registered in his favour or in favour of his nominee, for

which the seller will have no objection.

(III) Clause 6. In case the buyer fails to pay balance sale

consideration to the seller by date fixed, then seller will

have full right to cancel the agreement and forfeit the

advance.

(IV) Clause 7. In case the seller fails to transfer the

property in favour of the buyer or does not get the

registration done, then the buyer will have the right to get

the said sale deed executed and transferred through court,

for which the seller shall be responsible for damages

/expenses.

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 14 of 21

e. Thereafter, Defendants through their agents or nominees

remain in Plaintiffs contact, were duly explained with regards to

balance payment was to be made in advance, so that tile documents

of Industrial Plots would be released from the Bank, but Defendants

delayed by saying arranging funds. The Defendants did not have

funds.

f. On 23.11.2020 Defendants with ulterior motives and malafide

sent WhatsApp message requiring at the ends of Plaintiff

various NOC/permissions and also directed to remain present

on 26.11.2020 before the office of Sub Registrar with including:

a. NOC of sale the Plot from RIICO.

b. NOC from DIC & Bank, JVVNL, Sales Tax, Excise,

PF. ESI, etc:

g. Plaintiff on 25.11.2020 reverted back the Defendants to

know the status of funds, if available, then it may be provided

to Bank as first release of title deeds from the Bank is required,

admittedly procedurally it consumes time. Admittedly

Defendants did not share the draft of Sale Deed; DD for

registration Charges; purchasing of Stamp Duty.

h. Defendants at 7.46 PM on 25.11.2020 sent the screen shot of

two DD dated 25.11.2020 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Cannaught Place Branch, New Delhi but in bottom printed

issuing branch is Noida.

i. Plaintiff explained to the Defendants if it could have been done

earlier, then would have obtained all permissions and NOC

including keeping bank m confidence, even requested the

Defendants to accompany the Plaintiff bank for showing original to

its officers, so that necessary action for needful would have been

done. But Defendants have acted cleverly.

j. Thereafter Defendants stop talking with Plaintiff.

k. Without termination of Agreement to Sell or serving legal notice,

Defendant No. 1 filed civil suit being C.S.(O.S.) No. 48/2021

(Plaint dated 13.01.2021 instituted before this Hon'ble Court,

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 15 of 21

interalia, prayed for a decree of Rs.3,30,00,000/. with a view to

avoid the performance of obligations contained m the Agreement to

Sell dated 01.09.2020.

*** *** ***

16. That due to the breaches committed by the Defendants to the

stipulations contained in the Agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020,

were not ready & willing to perform their part of obligations,

further filing of C.S.(O.S.) No. 48/2021, therein I.A. No. 1046/2021

u/O XXXIX Rules l & 2 CPC, 1908 was filed inter alia prayed

restraining the Plaintiff from creating third part interest or sell the

Industrial Plots in question, therefore the Plaintiff could not have

been able to negotiate with third party to sell, therefore the Plaintiff

suffered a loss of Rs. 4,18,90,675/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighteen

Lakhs Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Five Only), the

details whereof are given hereunder:

i. Plaintiff incurred a loss of Rs. 1.91 Crores, which was paid

to Bank of Baroda towards interest on the loan. The said

amount was paid over a period, with the last payment being

made in April, 2024;

ii. Plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 2.04 Crores, as the Plaintiff

was compelled to sell the suit property at a distress value of

Rs. 3.51 Crores, whereas the agreed value under the

Agreement to Sell was Rs. 5.55 Crores. The said distress sale

was made after a delay of more than two years, i.e., in the

year 2022;

iii. Plaintiff further suffered a loss of Rs. 13,90,675/- (Rupees

Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Seventy -Five

Only) towards additional charges debited by the bank on

account of legal and recovery expenses after the Plaintiff's

account was declared as NPA;

iv. Plaintiff also suffered loss of goodwill and mental

harassment due to the acts of the Defendant, for which the

Plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs

Only) as damages.

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 16 of 21

17. That under the amended provision of Specific Relief Act,

1963 read with provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 Plaintiff is

entitled in the given facts of case for the losses suffered, besides

entitled in terms of stipulations of Agreement to Sell to forfeit the

earnest money Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakh

Only).

18. That the Defendants knowingly have failed to get enforce the

Agreement to sell in terms of Clause 7 of the Agreement to Sell,

which provides that "in case the seller fails to transfer the property

or get the sale deed registered, the buyer shall have the right to get

the sale deed executed through court, and the seller shall be liable

for all damages and expenses". However, the Defendants never

made any effort to get the Sale deed executed or to perform part of

the agreement. This clearly shows that the Defendants were never

ready and willing to perfo1m the part stated in the contract, due to

which the Plaintiff suffered losses.

*** *** ***

24. That the cause of action to file the present suit arose firstly on

23.11.2022 when the Plaintiff was compelled to sell the suit

property at a distress value of Rs. 3.51 Crores. It further arose in

April, 2024, when the Plaintiff made the last payment towards

interest to Bank of Baroda. The cause of action further arose in the

year 2024, when the Plaintiff paid additional charges and penalties

to the bank. The cause of action arose when pre-institution

mediation has failed with the report as 'Non - Starter' vide report

dated 19.12.2025 issued by DHCLSC. The cause of action also

arose when the Hon'ble Court granted libe1ty to the Plaintiff to file

fresh commercial suit upon withdrawal of the earlier C.S.(O.S.) No.

229/2025 vide order dated 09.01.2026 in respect of the same cause

of action. The cause of action is continuing one and still subsists.

*** *** ***

27. That the Plaintiff is approaching this Hon'ble Court as early as

possible, and the present suit is filed within the time limit and is not

barred by law of limitation.

28. That the present suit is commercial in nature as the

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 17 of 21

transaction in question pertains to industrial plots which, by their

very nature and usage, fall within the ambit of commercial

transactions. Section 2(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015

defines commercial disputes as follows:

"agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively

in trade or commerce".

*** *** ***

31. That the Plaintiff has its registered office within Delhi;

Plaintiff works for gain at Delhi; Defendant No. 1 also has its

registered office within Delhi, Defendants No. 2 & 3 also reside

within Delhi; cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of

this Hon'ble Court and the parties to the suit reside and work for

gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, therefore, this

Hon'ble Court has pecuniary & territorial jurisdiction to hear, try &

decide the present suit between the parties.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may graciously be pleased to pass a decree of:

a) Recovery of Rs 4,18,90,675/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighteen

Lakhs Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Five Only) in favor

of Plaintiff and against the Defendants jointly and severally, in the

interest of justice:

b) A ward interest @ 18% per annum on the recovery amount

from the date of due amount till its actual payment as the

transaction between the pa11ies was commercial in nature;

c) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and

against the Defendants;

d) Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper may also be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against

the Defendants, in the interest of justice.”

(emphasis supplied)

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 18 of 21

14. Perusal of the aforesaid averments made in both the suits, following

facts surface for adjudication in both the proceedings: -

A. Breach of agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020 as alleged by the

respondent claiming refund of the earnest money along with interest

and penalty thereon, and on the other hand, claim by the petitioner

resulting in forfeiting of the advance/earnest money, and further

claim of damages on account of loss due to non-performance of the

obligations in the said ATS dated 01.09.2020.

B. In order to claim respective breaches, both the respondent and the

petitioner have relied on certain communications between each

other including following WhatsApp messages: -

(i) Dated 23.11.2020 at 06:52 PM (from respondent to petitioner)

(ii) Dated 25.11.2020 at 06:53 PM (from petitioner to respondent)

(iii) Dated 25.11.2020 at 07:46 PM (from respondent to

petitioner); and

(iv) Dated 25.11.2020 at 11:48 PM (from petitioner to

respondent).

15. In these circumstances, reciprocal allegations of breach of terms of

agreement to sell are germane to the reliefs sought in both the suits. Although,

the suit instituted by the petitioner is with respect to damages but the main

issue remains as to who was responsible for non-performance of ATS dated

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 19 of 21

01.09.2020. Thus, evidence with respect to the same would be overlapping in

both the proceedings, and if tried separately then, same would lead to

multiplicity of proceedings, and possibly contrary findings on the same set of

facts.

16. Insofar as the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

that suit instituted by the respondent was prior in time to the suit instituted by

the petitioner before this Court is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the

same cannot be a sole ground to not transfer the suit when otherwise, in law,

if it is so warranted. The suit, CS (COMM) No.137/2026, instituted by the

petitioner before this Court cannot be transferred to be tried along with the

suit instituted on behalf of the respondent owing to pecuniary jurisdiction.

17. Reliance was placed on a judgment of learned Coordinate Bench of this

Court in Delhi Public School Society (supra) by learned Senior Counsel for

the respondent. In the said judgment, learned Coordinate Bench had dismissed

the transfer petition by observing that, the reliefs claimed in both suits were

different, and not entirely interdependent. The relevant observation made in

the said judgment reads as under: -

“26. Therefore, the suit filed by the respondent herein, in the year

2019, essentially revolves around the period when she had been

employed with the School as a teacher and has been asked to vacate

her official residential accommodation due to the termination of her

licence by the School, whereas the suit filed by the petitioners

herein pertains to the current period, wherein the reliefs sought

related to the period when the respondent herein had already been

superannuated from the School and the question is as to by what

authority, she has continued to stay in the premises even after her

superannuation”

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 20 of 21

18. In the present case, the main issue in both the suits is with respect to the

breach of terms of agreement to sell dated 01.09.2020.

19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed.

20. The suit, C.S. (Comm) No. 836/2025, instituted on behalf of the

respondent and pending in the Court of learned District Judge, (Commercial

Court-01), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, shall be transferred to

this Court where the suit, C.S. (Comm.) No. 137/2026, instituted by

petitioner is being tried. The said suit shall be proceeded from the stage, it is

being transferred and shall be tried along with the suit, CS (Comm.)

No.137/2026, pending before this Court.

21. Let the records of suit, CS (Comm.) No. 836/2025, instituted on behalf

of the respondent pending in the Court of learned District Judge, (Commercial

Court-01), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, be transferred to

Registry of this Court within a period of 10 days, and same may be listed for

hearing along with suit, CS (Comm.) No.137/2026, accordingly.

22. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned Bench of

this Court, accordingly.

23. Copy of the order be sent to learned District Judge (Commercial Court-

01), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, for necessary information and

compliance.

TR.P.(C.) 54/2026 Page 21 of 21

24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA

(JUDGE)

MAY 29, 2026/bsr/ns