SURENDER ARORA Vs. SATAZO TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code in the suit for specific performance in respect of the entire 11th floor, Narain Manzil, 23 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

(2.) There are allegations that defendants are trying to create third party interest by disposing of the property. However, in reply and affidavit, the defendants have denied the allegations. The plaintiff has filed advertisements allegedly given by the defendants in respect of the sale of the property. According to the defendants, advertisement was not given by them but it, appears to be mischief on the part of plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff has played fraud which was brought to the notice of this court in reply to I.A. 10770/98.

(3.) Plaintiff is .a real estate agent. On 15.10.1992, Mrs.Sumitra Chisti, defendant no.3, as Trustee of defendant no.1 through 'the plaintiff applied to M/s.Inder Pratap Singh (HUF), defendant no.6, for allotment of the entire 11th floor, 'measuring 9000 sq ft. in the proposed multi-storeyed building known as "Narain Manzil', 23, Bar akhamba Road, Mew Delhi, Defendant no.6 accepted the application and agreed to sell the-entire 11th, floor for Rs.four crore and 84 lakhs. As per the agreement, an amount of Rs.1.39 crores was, paid by defendant no.1 to the builder and the remaining balance was payable by the plaintiff. Till date, plaintiff has not , paid any amount whereas defendant no.1 has paid the entire amount to the builder. Thus, according to defendant no.1, plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that is why, till date, plaintiff no.1 has not been ,able to make any payment.