ASHOK KUMAR GOEL Vs. VENU BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This order shall dispose of an application (OMP .No. 148/98) filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Prcoedure Code.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 5th May, 1995 and has further sought a decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction it is said that in case the stay, is not granted, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. The defendant is thus sought to be restrained from raising any construction on the site in question and further from selling, transferring alienating, encumbering or charging the same during the pendency of the present suit.

(3.) In reply filed to this application, the defendant states that the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and correct facts have not been placed before the court. It is said that the defendant has already started raising construction on the site and has spent Rs. 4,50,000/- on it. The agreement stands admitted. An amount of Rs. 10 lacs is further admitted to have been received as earnest money. It is sought to be urged from the side of the defendant that as per clause (b) of the agreement, a further amount of Rs. 10 lacs was to be paid within fifteen days of the revalidation of the approved plans. It is said that the plans were duly got revali- dated under intimation to the plaintiff. There was absolutely no response from his side and the husband of the defendant then sent a letter on December 8, 1995 asking the plaintiff to make clear his stand. It is said that the husband of the defendant was acting on her behalf. The letter, postal receipt and acknowledgement have been placed on record along with the reply.