GANDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. SHYAMLAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the original plaintiff takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant any interim injunction in favour of the appellant during pendency of the suit.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellant plaintiff that on 26 -11 -2007, an agreement was entered into with the predecessor of the respondents -original defendant. As per said agreement, the parties agreed that the work of developing the property in question which was an open plot for the purposes of constructing an apartment scheme should be undertaken by the appellant subject to various terms and conditions. According to the appellant, it was permitted to develop said property subject to the original defendant paying a sum of Rs. 531 per square foot as consideration. Initially, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ -was paid to the original defendant. The balance amounts were to be paid in the manner prescribed in the agreement. According to the appellant, on 18 -3 -2011, a notice came to be issued to the original defendant calling upon said defendant to take all necessary steps in terms of said agreement so as to complete the contract. Thereafter, on 4 -5 -2012 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - came to be paid to the original defendant and on 5 -5 -2012, the appellant received possession of the suit property. Thereafter on 17 -7 -2012 another notice came to be issued to the original defendant to complete the transaction in question. However, as no steps were taken by the original defendant and subsequently by his legal heirs, suit for specific performance of agreement dated 26 -11 -2007 came to be filed in March, 2013.

(3.) DURING pendency of the said suit, the appellant moved an application below Exhibit -5 praying that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform its part of the agreement and that the respondents were not interested in completing the transaction. It was, therefore, prayed that during pendency of the suit, the respondents be restrained from disturbing the possession of the appellant and also that no third party rights be created in the suit property. This application was opposed by the respondents on the same stand that was taken in the written statement.