Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 654/24
NAND KUMAR PANDEY Vs. SANJEEV JINDAL
04/06/2026
Present : Sh. Sanjay Mishra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Bhagat Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
1. Order on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
CPC.
2. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff presses his application dated
09/09/2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX AS STATED IN THE PLAINT
3. The suit property is Shop No. 7, Lower Ground
(Basement Portion) measuring 118.3 Sq. Feet i.e. (13X9.10) at
Khasra No. 100/28, Shiva Tower, Jindal Arcade, Village – Razapur,
Sector – 9, Rohini, Delhi – 110085 (hereinafter referred to as suit
property).
4. It is case of the plaintiff that he wanted to purchase
the suit property from defendant. Agreement to Sell dated
29/06/2019 is relied upon. Since plaintiff wanted to pay in
installments, the sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 9 lacs.
5. It is case of the plaintiff that Rs. 8.20 lacs already
stands paid.
6. It is case of the plaintiff that on 03/07/2024,
defendant intimated that there is Bank Loan on the property. If
plaintiff asks his money back, then defendant will sell the shop to
someone else. Therefore, present suit with the prayer for restraining
-- 1 of 8 --
defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit
property has been filed. Alternate relief of refund of Rs. 8.20 lacs
has been made.
DEFENCE IN BRIEF
7. In essence, it is defence of the defendant that loan of
Rs. 8 lacs was paid by M/s Surya Bharat Nirmal Developers to the
plaintiff. As per Tripartite Agreement, the plaintiff was to pay Rs.
8 lacs to M/s Surya Bharat Nirmal Developers. Plaintiff defaulted.
M/s Surya Bharat Nirmal Developers triggered litigation against
plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed this counter-blast case.
FIRST ARGUMENT – On Prima Facie Case.
8. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that consideration of
Rs. 8.20 lacs stands already paid. Reliance is placed upon Bank
Statement. It is argued that since plaintiff is in possession, present
application be allowed, restraining defendant from dispossessing
the plaintiff during pendency of the case.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant argues that it is
pleaded case of the plaintiff in Para No. 5 of the plaint that Rs. 1
lac were given in cash to the defendant. Remaining balance money
totaling to Rs. 9 lacs were given in installments. This is contrary to
receipt at Page No. 42, dated 29/06/2019, in which defendant had
received Rs. 9 lacs in one go. Thus, plaintiff has no prima facie
case.
10. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that
Account Statements at Page No. 50 of the Paper Book relied upon
-- 2 of 8 --
by the plaintiff show that on 05/10/2019, Rs. 14,000/- was paid to
M/s Surya Bharat Nirmal Developers. Some payments like
payment dated 01/09/2020, which were made to the defendant are
not in relation to the present suit property. Qua the present suit
property, the defendant has already received Rs. 9 lacs. The present
suit has been filed to overcome the liability of plaintiff towards M/s
Surya Bharat Nirmal Developers.
11. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that
Agreement to Sell dated 29/06/2019 is unregistered despite the fact
that possession is with the plaintiff. Plaintiff thus, under amended
provisions of Registration Act, 1908, after 2001 amendments,
cannot protect his possession, as per law. Even under Section 53A
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, after 2001 amendments.
SECOND ARGUMENT – On Balance Of Convenience.
12. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that since plaintiff is
in possession, present application be allowed, restraining defendant
from dispossessing the plaintiff during pendency of the case.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant argues that
plaintiff does not have prima facie case in view of the submissions
made above and thus, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
deserved dismissal.
THIRD ARGUMENT – On Irreparable Injury.
14. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that if plaintiff is
dispossessed he cannot be compensated in terms of money.
-- 3 of 8 --
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant argues that
even in the plaint, alternative relief of refund of advance money has
been made and thus no irreparable injury is caused to the plaintiff
if application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 is dismissed.
16. Heard. File perused
SCOPE OF INTERVENTION BY COURT :
17. In the case of
‘Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca
Cola Co.’ reported in 1995 (5) SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, while discussing the factors to be considered by the Courts
in exercise of the discretion under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC,
has held that :-
“The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the
pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring
the exercise of discretion of the Court. While
exercising the discretion, the Court applies the
following tests:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case;
(ii) Whether the balance of convenience is in
favour of the plaintiff;
(iii) Whether the plaintiff would suffer an
irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory is
disallowed.”
FINDINGS
18. This Court has heard the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the relevant record with their assistance. The
Court has considered the probability of success in the trial and the
comparative strength of the cases of the respective parties before
it. The Court has considered that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs
to prove their case to the hilt and if a fair question is raised for
-- 4 of 8 --
determination, it should be taken that a prima facie case has been
established.
FINDINGS ON FIRST ARGUMENT – On Prima Facie Case.
19. Submissions on behalf of plaintiff that consideration
of Rs. 8.20 lacs stands already paid. Reliance is rightly placed upon
Bank Statement. It is rightly argued that since plaintiff is in
possession, present application be allowed, restraining defendant
from dispossessing the plaintiff during pendency of the case.
20. Submissions on behalf of defendant that it is pleaded
case of the plaintiff in Para No. 5 of the plaint that Rs. 1 lac were
given in cash to the defendant. Remaining balance money totaling
to Rs. 9 lacs were given in installments. This is contrary to receipt
at Page No. 42, dated 29/06/2019, in which defendant had received
Rs. 9 lacs in one go. Thus, plaintiff has no prima facie case are
without merits. These submissions are rejected as admittedly, as
per the receipt, the defendant has received Rs. 9 lacs. Defendant
has no interest left in the suit property. He cannot dispossess the
plaintiff.
21. Submissions on behalf of defendant that Account
Statements at Page No. 50 of the Paper Book relied upon by the
plaintiff show that on 05/10/2019, Rs. 14,000/- was paid to M/s
Surya Bharat Nirmal Developers. Some payments like payment
dated 01/09/2020, which were made to the defendant are not in
relation to the present suit property. Qua the present suit property,
the defendant has already received Rs. 9 lacs. The present suit has
been filed to overcome the liability of plaintiff towards M/s Surya
-- 5 of 8 --
Bharat Nirmal Developers are without merits. These submissions
are rejected, as per the receipt, the defendant has received Rs. 9
lacs. Defendant has no interest left in the suit property. He cannot
dispossess the plaintiff.
22. Submissions on behalf of defendant that Agreement
to Sell dated 29/06/2019 is unregistered despite the fact that
possession is with the plaintiff. Plaintiff thus, under amended
provisions of Registration Act, 1908, after 2001 amendments,
cannot protect his possession, as per law. Even under Section 53A
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, after 2001 amendments. The
plaintiff cannot protect his possession are without merits. These
submissions are rejected as admittedly, defendant has received Rs.
9 lacs. Plaintiff is in possession. Evidence of collateral transaction
not required to be effected by registered instrument is permissible
as per Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908. The effects of amended
provisions will be a moot point during the final arguments. At this
stage, plaintiff has a strong prima facie case as admittedly,
defendant has received Rs. 9 lacs.
23. Whether plaintiff had taken any loan or not pursuant
to Tripartite Agreement as alleged by the defendant will be a moot
point during the trial. Suffice to say at this stage that there is no
Tripartite Agreement on record to strengthen the pleas of the
defendant.
FINDINGS ON SECOND ARGUMENT – On Balance Of
Convenience.
-- 6 of 8 --
24. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has rightly argued that since
plaintiff is in possession, present application be allowed,
restraining defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff during
pendency of the case.
25. Submissions on behalf of defendant that plaintiff
does not have prima facie case in view of the submissions made
above and thus, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 deserved
dismissal are without merits. These submissions are rejected in
view of findings on first argument above.
FINDINGS ON THIRD ARGUMENT – On Irreparable Injury.
26. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has rightly argued that if
plaintiff is dispossessed he cannot be compensated in terms of
money.
27. Submissions on behalf of defendant that even in the
plaint, alternative relief of refund of advance money has been made
and thus no irreparable injury is caused to the plaintiff if application
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 is dismissed are without merits. These
submissions are rejected as if plaintiff is dispossessed during
pendency of the case, he will suffer loss of business, reputation and
hardships, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
28. It is in interest of justice that the present admitted
state of affairs continues. Plaintiff is in possession. His possession
needs protection. Nothing stated in this order shall effect the merits
of the case or rights of third parties.
29. Accordingly, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
dated 09/09/2024 is allowed. Defendant is restrained form
-- 7 of 8 --
dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly or from creating hindrance in
use and enjoyment of suit property, till pendency of this case.
30. Now, to come up for filing of affidavit of admission-
denial of documents and framing of issues on 23/10/2026.
(VIKRAM BALI)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/NORTH/ROHINI
DELHI/04/06/2026
-- 8 of 8 --