YASHODA RANI Vs. MANEESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.4.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA.8057 of 1993 in Suit No.2065 of 1993, by which he confirmed the interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating, transferring or otherwise parting with the possession of the suit property.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed:

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, assailed the order submitting that the appellants had acted bonafide as they were not in position to fulfil the obligation of handing over vacant possession of the first floor and had promptly notified the respondents of the same. Mr. Rohtagi further submitted that time was the essence of the contract. He explained that the appellants daughter's marriage had been fixed for 18.11.1993 and the appellants had entered into an agreement for sale of the property as they were in dire need of finances. He further submitted that the respondents did not intimate to the appellants their willingness to accept the suit property in its existing condition. According to him, the letter dated 28.6.1993 was ante dated and was received only on 2.7.1993, by which time the appellants had entered into a fresh Agreement to Sell with third parties. He submitted that impugned order does not record any prima facie finding of breach on the part of the appellants. It does not consider that the third parties were not even impleaded and the agreement with them was entered into prior to the filing of the suit.