R S ARYA Vs. T R DEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by R.S, Arya, plaintiff-appellant, is directed against the order dated March 4, 1996, of a learned Single Judge disposing of two applications - one IA No. 11848/93 (ought to have been 11020/95) tiled under Order XXXIX, Rules 1,2 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code and the other IA No. 11851/95 filed tinder Order XXXIX, Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC.

(2.) Appellant filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction alleging that the defendant-respondent is the owner of plot bearing No. 63. Dilshad Extension I, Delhi and he agreed to sell it to him for a sum of Rs. 7,95,000.00 . On August 26,1995 appellant paid Rs. 20,000.00 in cash besides handing over a cheque for Rs. 75,000.00 to the respondent. Last date for execution and registration of the sale deed was settled as October 15, 1995. It is further alleged that on October 12, 1995 appellant gave two more cheques for Rs. 3,22,500.00 and Rs. 3,77,5001- towards balance sale consideration to the respondent and on that date itself possession of aforesaid plot No. 63-D was handed over by the respondent to the appellant. However one of the cheques for Rs. 3,77,500.00 was returned by the bank with the remark signatures differ". It is stated that the appellant visited respondents house on October 15, 1995 and offered him the amount of the said cheque in cash but the respondent asked him to pay the amount through a bank draft and to extend the time for execution and registration of the sale deed upto October 18, 1995 to enable him to obtain the income tax clearance certificate. Appellant got the bank draft prepared in the name of the respondent on October 17,1995. Respondent, however, did not come to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi, on October 18,1995 to execute the sale deed as promised. It was prayed that a decree for specific performance may be passed against the respondent directing him to execute the sale deed and got the same registered in regard to aforesaid plot No. 63-D. By means of decree for perpetual injunction respondent was further sought to be restrained from transferring the above plot in favour of a third person.

(3.) In the suit IA No. 11020/95 was filed by the appellant and by the order dated October 27,1995, respondent was restrained from transferring, alienating, creating any third party interest or dispossessing the appellant from said plot No. 63-D till March 26,1996.