Holding

The Court held that the interlocutory application may be withdrawn and that it need not examine the truth of the allegations in the affidavit; the application is dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

The case arose from two partition suits settled by a family settlement and a decree directing the execution of a General Power of Attorney and payment of amounts. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered that V.M. Singh deposit the balance amount, which he did, but later sought to withdraw his interlocutory application (IA No.16) seeking permission to deposit. The original appellants opposed the withdrawal, alleging that the applicant’s additional affidavit contained defamatory and false statements and that the court should examine those allegations. The Court held that the IA concerned only the permission to deposit money and that it was not required to adjudicate the truth of the affidavit’s content; any aggrieved party could raise such issues in separate proceedings. Consequently, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the IA, dismissed the related IA as infructuous, and ordered the deposited amount to be returned to V.M. Singh.

Issues considered

Whether an interlocutory application seeking permission to deposit money may be withdrawn after the order has been passed.
Whether the Court must consider the correctness of defamatory allegations made in an affidavit filed with the interlocutory application.
Whether the interlocutory application should be dismissed as infructuous.

Subjects

interlocutory applicationwithdrawal of applicationdefamation affidavitfamily settlementgeneral power of attorneySupreme Court directionsdeposit of moneyinfructuous

Judgment

KIRPAL KAUR ANO ANR. A
v.
V.M. SINGH AND ORS.

AUGUST 30, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] B

Interlocutory application-In appeal arising out of decision based on
settlement, Supreme Court, while disposing of appeal, giving certain
directions-Since directions not complied with, on an IA having been filed, C
applicant permitted to deposit money in Court-On contest by other party,
applicant seeking to withdraw said IA-The said other party resisting
withdrawal of IA, stating that incorrect and defamatory a/legations were
made therein·-Held: In the interlocutory applications, Court is concerned
only with regard to the question whether permission should be accorded to
applicant to deposit the amount pursuant to an earlier order-Since applicant D
has expressed his intention to withdraw the said IA, interest ofjustice would
be sub-served if applicant is permitted to withdraw his IA-/As having become
infructuous are rejected-Jn the instant proceedings, Court need not go into
correctness or otherwise of allegations made by applicant in /Alaffidavit-
lf any person is aggrieved by the said statement of the applicant he may raise E
such contention in appropriate proceedings.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No.
6327 of2005.

AND
F
I.A. No. 17 in I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2003 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in FAO{OS] No. 162 of2000.

WITH
G
I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of2005.
AND

I.A. No. 18 in I.A. No. 16 in C.A. No. 6326 of 2005.

615 H
--\
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants.

K.L. Janjani, Prashant Kumar, Manik Karanjawala, Arvind Minocha and
G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondents.

Respondent-in-person.
B The Order of the Court was delivered by

ORDER

I. Two suits of partition, one filed in the year 1975 andthe other in the
C year 1989 were subject matter of the consent decree passed in or about April
1993. A deed of family settlement was executed between the parties to the
suit. Applicant-Respondent herein was a beneficiary of the said family
settlement. He had been acting on behalf of the appellants as their assignee.
Appeals preferred against the said judgments and decrees were dismissed· by
the High Court by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated
D 19.05.2000. Intra-court appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed by
a Division Bench of the said Court by a common judgment and order dated
04.03.2003. Appellants ~erein filed applications for grant of special leave )..
thereagainst before this Court. The said appeals by grant of special leave
have been dismissed by this Court by an order dated 7.10. 2005 directing :

E "However, having regard to the facts that the disputes between the
members of one family which are sought to be solved leaving no _
outstanding area, we pass the further direction that in the event KK
and Guneeta execute the General Power of Attorney in terms of the
first agreement in favour of VMS, VMS will pay the balance amount
due to KK and Guneeta in terms of the agreement. Such execution of
F the General Power of Attorney shall be within a period of our weeks
from date the entire balance of amount must be paid within a period
of four weeks thereafter.
As far as AA is concerned, subject to her executing the necessary
conveyance in respect of the 44 acres of land mentioned in clause -
G e of the second agreement in favour of VMS, VMS will pay the
balance amount payable to AA in terms of the second agreement.
Such conveyance must be executed within a period of four weeks from
date and the payment must be made within four weeks thereafter."

2. Allegedly, the said directions were not carried out. A contempt
H petition was filed by Respondent No. l which was dismissed. Applicant
l--
KIRPALKAURv. V.M.SINGH 617
herein, viz., Shri V.M. Singh (original first respondent), however, filed an A
application for grant of permission to deposit the amount in question before
this Court, despite the fact that no Power of Attorney had been executed in
his favour pursuant to the said direction of this Court. By an order dated
28.07.2006, the applicant was permitted to deposit the money as ordered in
the Civil Appeal with the Registrar General of this Court. However, by an
order dated 06.09.2006, he was permitted to deposit bank draft after rectifying B
the defects pointed out by the Registry.

3. An application being I.A. No. 18 had been filed by Shri Shri
Anandamayee Sangha for permission to file an application for impleadment
as a party respondent in I.A. No. 16 in C.A. No. 6327 of 2005. The said C
permission was accorded by this Court by an order dated 25.09.2006. The
application filed by the applicant-respondent for depositing the amount in
question has been opposed by the appellant.

4. Respondent-Applicant, who appeared in person, would submit that
if the respondents or the appellants in the appeals have any objection in D
,.1, n:gard to acceptance of the amount deposited by him in this Court pursuant
to the aforementioned order, he would withdraw his application.

5. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original
appellants, however, would draw our attention to the statements made in the
additional affidavit affirmed by the applicant and submitted that this Court, E
in view of his conduct, should not permit him to withdraw this application at
this stage as correctness of the statement made in the said additional affidavit
is in question.

6. The learned counsel submitted that an affidavit had been affirmed by
one Harish Kumar containing serious allegations against the original appellants F
which were defamatory in nature. The deponent of the said affidavit should
be permitted to be cross-examined.

7. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicants in I.A. No.17 filed in I.A. No.16 in C.A. No. 6327 of2005, would G
submit that it has become necessary for his clientto be impleaded as a party
respondent to the proceedings as a deed of gift had been executed in its
favour by the appellants even prior to the institution of partition suit.

8. In these Interlocutory Applications, this Court is concerned only with
·the question at this stage as to whether permission should be accorded to H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.
A the applicant to deposit the amount as directed by this Court on 28.07.2006. -><

It may be true that pursuant to the aforementioned order dated 28.07.2006, the
amount in question has already been deposited. However, the applicant has
expressed his intention to withdraw the said application. We do not see any
reason as to why he should not be permitte~ to do so., In a proceeding of
this nature, this Court need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the .
B allegations made by the applicant against the appellants or any other person.
The prayer of the appellants that a copy of the CD which has been filed along
with I.A. No.16 should be given to them also need not be considered at this
stage. In our opinion, interest of justice would be subserved if the applicant
is permitted to withdraw his Interlocutory Application. If the appellant or any
C other person is/are aggrieved by the statements made in the additional affidavit
of the applicant and/ or in the affidavit affinned by one Harish Kumar; they
may raise such contentions in appropriate proceedings as are permissible in
law. A copy of the CD filc:d by the applicant be sent in a sealed cover to the
executing court so as to enable the parties to file appropriate applications
before the executing court in respect thereof, if they so desire.
D
9. As we are permitting the applicant to withdraw his application, the
application for impleadm~nt has become infructuous. It is dismissed accordingly.
The amount deposited by Shri V.M. Singh be returned to him.

10. As the matter is pending for a long time, we would request the
E learned executive court to consider the desirability of disposing of the execution
proceedings at an early date preferably within a period three months of the
from the communication of this order. ,

11. Subject to the observations made hereinbefore, I.A. No.16 in both
F the appeals is permitted to be withdrawn and ottier interlocutory applications
are dismissed as having become. infructuous.

RP.
.
I.A. No. 16 with and I.A. No. 18 dismissed.

; !"