BHAGWAN DASS Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of an application filed by the defendant inter alia seeking the vacation of the ad interim injunction granting in favour of the plaintiff thereby restraining the defendants from withdrawing the amount of Rs. 3,00,000.00 from the Union Bank of India, Delhi Auchandi Pucca Road.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Shri Bhagwan and others entered into an Agreement for sale of land bearing Khasra Nos. 21/15 (4-12), 21/16/1(2-00), 21/16/2(2-16), 21/17/1(2-08), 22/10(3-19), 22/11 (4-16) and 22/20(4-16) aggregating 25 bighas and 7 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Auchandi, Delhi Union Territory, for a sum of Rs. 5,90,000.00 per acre. The plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 by way of advance cum part payment out of the total agreed sale price. The bargain was to be completed within 6 months. Defendants were to procure 'no objection certificate'. The defendant had assured the plaintiff that the land was free from all encumbrances. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that they were to complete the sale within the stipulated period but the defendants delayed in obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' for about a month or rather refused to procure 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the suit land as a result of which the very essence of the contract was frustrated hence the plaintiff wanted the defendants to return the amount of Rs. 3,00.000.00 along with interest. Whereas according to defendant it is the plaintiff who with ulterior motive is neither getting the land registered in his name nor paying the amount. Defendants have already been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The application seeking 'no objection certificate' under the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1975 required the signature of both the parties but the plaintiff refused to sign the same. On account of quashing of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in November, 1980, the land in South Delhi has became available and therefore the plaintiff wants to frustrate the contract. Hence plaintiff should not allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs.

(3.) It is in this background that the ad interim order passed by this Court be vacated because it is the defendant who has suffered at the bands of plaintiff and the interim order is very harsh on defendant. By this application, the defendants want's that the order to be vacated and he be permitted to encash the amount because according to him, there is no ban on the sale of the land situated in the villages where consolidation of operations are in progress. This is in pursuance to the Notification issued under Section 30 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act), 1948. These sales are permitted after seeking permission of the Consolidation Officer under Section 30 of the said Act. Therefore, the defandants have approached the plaintiff repeatedly for getting the signatures on the application forms but it is in fact the plaintiff who had been avoiding the performance of the contract as a result of which the defendants have suffered.