VIKAS AGGARWAL Vs. BAL KRISHNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present application plaintiff seeks refund of Rs.6.24 crores deposited in the Court.

(2.) PLAINTIFF has filed the present suit for specific performance of contract dated 01.02.2013 and for mandatory injunction arising out of an agreement to sell dated 01.02.2013 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 with respect to the half share of property measuring 38 bigha 5 biswa comprised in Khasra No.38/24/1 (3 -8), 41/4 (4 -12), 5/1 (1 -5), 7 (4 - 16), 13 (4 -16), 27 (0 -4), 56/19/2 (3 -19), 20/2 (4 -8), 21 (4 -16), 22/2/2 (1 - 1), 23 (4 -16) and 28 (0 -4) four acres situated within the revenue estate of village Bakhtawar Pur, New Delhi.

(3.) 06.2013 for which a separate receipt was signed. Plaintiff has placed copies of receipts on record evidencing payment of a total sum of Rs.3 crores to the defendants as per the schedule fixed in the agreement to sell. Receipt of payments is not in dispute. 4. Reliance is placed on clause -9 of the agreement to sell by Mr.Sibal, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, to show that an NOC was to be obtained by the defendants under Section 8 of the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act 1972 from the Tehsildar Notification/ADM/DC concerned authority by the defendants. This NOC was to be applied before 01.06.2013. It is further submitted by Mr.Sibal that the defendants applied for the NOC on 07.06.2013 after a delay of about one week. A copy of the application was handed over to the plaintiff for their record and thus the plaintiff was under an impression that NOC had not been received. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after paying Rs.3 crores, the plaintiffs kept on visiting the house of the defendants to inquire about receipt of the NOC. However, no satisfactory response was received. It is also the case of the plaintiff that nearing the date of completion of the transactions one of the defendants being defendant No.1 had gone abroad and therefore was not in the country for the execution of the sale deed. It is also the case of the plaintiff that meanwhile in the month of August 2013 the plaintiff again approached defendants No.1 and 2 and fresh set of documents for obtaining NOC were signed on 15.08.2013. The plaintiff was under a bona fide impression that NOC had not been received by the defendants.