$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 70/2026 & CM APPL. 17415/2026 CM APPL. 17416/2026 RENU TANEJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Mr. Ishan Seth, Advocates. versus NIKA DEVI .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 30th January 2026 passed by the District Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in dismissing the application filed by petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking rejection of the plaint. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,00,000/- claiming double the amount of earnest money of Rs. 5,50,000/- paid under an Agreement to Sell (‘ATS’) dated 31st October 2014, regarding property bearing No. E-2/26-27, Third Floor, Sector 16, Rohini (hereinafter, ‘subject property’). 3. Mr. Deepak Tyagi, counsel for petitioner/defendant, points out that the ATS, being the foundational document, was itself not produced by respondent/plaintiff. This is evident from the order dated 26th July 2025, when an application under Section 33, 38 and 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2026 at 11:32:28 was moved by petitioner/defendant stating that the ATS should be called and impounded for inadequate stamp duty. 4. Mr. Tyagi, points out that the Court noted in the said order that ATS cannot be impounded considering that it was not available in original and respondent/plaintiff stated that it was not in their possession. However, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted that they would prove their case on the basis of other evidence to be led. 5. The said application under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was disposed of and the matter has since proceeded ahead and respondent’s/plaintiff's evidence is being recorded. Therefore, the petitioner's/defendant’s essential argument is that, since the foundational document itself is not there, suit should not proceed and must be dismissed. 6. For this, he relies upon Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal (Dead) through LRs’ & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2603, where Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the judgment of Calcutta High Court, which had in turn allowed the first appeal, by setting aside the judgement of Trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff (therein). Instead, the High Court decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of plaintiff (therein). 7. In Bidyut Sarkar (supra), one of the issues which had been framed in the suit related to ATS, which was marked with an objection and whether the same should be admitted in evidence. After traversing through the requisite provisions under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Supreme Court noted that the Trial Court had found the ATS to be insufficiently stamped. The Supreme Court concluded that they had no reason to disagree with the findings of Trial Court, regarding the inadmissibility of ATS and the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2026 at 11:32:28 document being insufficiently stamped, was rightfully barred from being admitted in evidence. 8. Supreme Court, therefore, stated that as the document is foundational to the suit, failure to comply with the statutory requirements renders the entire claim unenforceable and consequently, suit will be dismissed. 9. Understandably, Mr. Tyagi, counsel for petitioner/defendant seeks to rely on this judgment; however, it must be noted that the decision of Supreme Court was rendered, pursuant to trial already having been concluded and a decree having been passed and further, having gone through the appeal mechanism of High Court, as well. 10. As far as the present suit is concerned, it is at the stage of trial, and in the opinion of this Court, respondent/plaintiff cannot be disentitled from attempting to prove its claim, on the basis of evidence to be placed on record. The claim is based on payments made to the defendant and, at the very least, refund of those payments, the transaction having fallen through. The plaintiff cannot be non-suited at this stage, when the opportunity to possibly bring in collateral evidence of the transaction is yet to be availed. 11. It is also noted that the application filed under Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was disposed of with liberty to petitioner/defendant to raise appropriate objections, in case the original ATS is brought on record at a later stage. 12. Trial Court also noted that respondent/plaintiff will suffer consequences, if the ATS is not proved as per law. Therefore, the Court does not find any reason to intercede with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2026 at 11:32:28 14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 13, 2026/RK/sp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2026 at 11:32:28