RAJIV VASHISHTHA Vs. BRIJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT is an appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff against impugned order dated 27.04.2012 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi by which two applications of appellant/plaintiff, both under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant herein i.e. plaintiff before the learned trial court has filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the respondent herein i.e. defendant before the learned trial court alleging therein that the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant had entered into an agreement dated 25.08.2007 wherein respondent/defendant had agreed to sell suit property i.e. property no. 652A, First Floor, Sri Nagar, Gali no.1, Shakurbasti, Delhi-110034 to the appellant/plaintiff for consideration of Rs.9,90,000/-. It is alleged that earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh was also paid to the respondent/defendant and balance amount was to be paid by 29.10.2007 after availing the bank loan. The appellant/plaintiff has further alleged that respondent/defendant had handed over the possession of the suit property to the appellant/plaintiff and it was agreed that the balance amount was to be paid by 29.10.2007 after availing bank loan and in case the bank loan was delayed for some reasons and the time limit was to be extended. It was agreed that after 29.10.2007 till the finance by the bank, the appellant/plaintiff will pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent/defendant. It is further alleged that respondent/defendant did not provide complete chain of documents to appellant/plaintiff as a result of which his loan application was rejected by the bank. The respondent/defendant had assured for providing complete chain of documents and the appellant/plaintiff had also paid Rs. 10,000/- for 5 months to him. But the complete chain of documents was not supplied and with the mutual consent, the appellant/plaintiff started paying Rs. 3,500/- as rent and kept on requesting the respondent/defendant for providing the requisite documents so that the transaction could be completed.

(3.) BOTH these applications have been rejected by the learned ADJ vide impugned order dated 27.04.2012.