ATUL TALWAR Vs. VINOD KUMAR KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main suit is for specific pertormance. IA No. 8049/ 95 was filed for injunction by the plaintiff. IA No. 81S6/95 was filed by the defendants for vacating the ad interim injunction granted On 29.08.1995 IA No. 8049/95 was dismissed for default. It will appear that there was an appeal against that order. On 19.10.1995 the Division Bench passed an order in effect setting aside the order of the dismissal in view of the submission made by learned Counsel for the defendants that he would not oppose the application filed by the plaintiff for restoration of IA No. 8049/95. IA No. 8584/95 (Under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC) is for restoration of the dismissal of IA No. 8049 /95 on 28.9.1995. Therefore IA No. 8584/ 95 is allowed. IA No. 8049/95 for injunction stands restored.

(2.) IA No. 8049/95 for injunction is dealt with IA No. Si 86/95 which is filed by the defendants for setting aside the ad intreim order. Then- is also another IA filed by the plaintiff subsequently i.e. IA 9545 /95 purporting to be under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 52 of the T.P Act. there are four defendants in the suit. Defendants 3 and 4 are the owners of the plot No. H-13/8, Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi. Defendants I and 2 are the builders.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 under some collaboration agreement took over the said plot No. H-13/8, Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi for the purpose of putting up a complex. Defendants I and 2 represented the plaintiff in February 1993 that they had the right to construct on the property. Defendants I and 2 have the full disposing power to sell the second, third, fourth floors and the basement of the said property. Defendants 1, 2 and the plaintiff had a discussion and the defendants I and 2 agreed to sell to the plaintiff the second, third and fourth floors and the basement of the property. On 8.2.1993, defendants I and 2 after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 as advance and part sale consideration issued a receipt. The receipt contained the essential terms and conditions of the transaction of the sale. On 7.4.1995, a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 was paid over by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. On 8.6.1995 anaother sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 was paid over to the first defendant by the plaintiff. The total consideration for.sale of the above property is Rs. 8,75,000.00. In para 4 of the plaint the main terms and conditions of the sale duly agreed to between the parties are detailed as under :