OM PRAKASH Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for obtaining of restraint orders against the defendant from selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring or otherwise parting with the possession of sundry immovable properties which are the subject matter of the plaint. The suit is for the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 27.3.1997 between the parties in respect of these properties.

(2.) When the case came up for hearing for the first time on 19.8.1997 the ex parte adinterim injunction prayed for was granted, conditional on the deposit of the amount payable up to 26.9.1997; an amount of Rs. 7,25,000.00 was deposited and has now been invested in Fixed Deposit. After summons and notices were issued on the defendant he has filed his written statement and reply to the application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 as also an application for vacation of stay under Order 39, Rule 4. Both these applications will be disposed of by this order.

(3.) The first contention of the defendant was that in the plaint an alternative prayer has been preferred for the passing of a decree for Rs. 7,75,000.00 alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum and, therefore, it would be appropriate if the restraint orders in respect of the suit properties should be recalled. Since the prayer in the suit was in specie to the. said amount of Rs. 7,75,000.00 , the injunction in respect of immovable property was not called for. This argument appears to be misconceived for the reason that in every suit for specific performance of a contract relating to immovable property, it is incumbent that the plaintiff prays for damages in the alternative since he would otherwise be precluded from claiming this relief. Acceptance of the argument of the defendant would have the consequences of negating and rendering illusory the right of a party to seek specific performance of a contact. This is not the intendment of Specific Relief Act. This statute itself provides that compensation in terms of money cannot be considered as an adequate relief in cases of breach of a contract pertaining to immovable property.