SARDAR BALVINDER SINGH Vs. P.N MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT applications have been filed by defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ad interim injunction order dated 22nd July, 2011.

(2.) MS . Shilpa Chohan, learned counsel for defendant No.4 contended that plaintiffs had falsely stated at the time of passing of the interim order dated 22nd July, 2011 that the entire suit property bearing No. L-II-80, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 was a subject matter of the Agreement to Sell dated 28th July, 2008. She pointed out that the Agreement to Sell dated 28th July, 2008 only dealt with eighty per cent of the suit property and twenty per cent of the suit property belonging to defendant No.4 was never a part of the Agreement to Sell. Consequently, she submitted that the injunction order dated 22 nd July, 2011 needed to be vacated.

(3.) MR . Jitender Chaudhary, learned counsel also contended that the plaintiffs had wrongly stated that a draft sale deed was exchanged between the parties by E-mails dated 13th May, 2011 and 16th May, 2011. He stated that the aforesaid E-mails are fabricated. In support of his contention, he relied upon the report of Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, who opined that the aforesaid E-mails were sent from an I.D. which was not created from the defendants' address, but was created from E-35, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024.