Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CHANCHAL ROY CHAUDHARY
VS.
CHARU MALIK
25.03.2023
Fresh suit has been received by way of assignment. It be
checked and registered as per law.
Present : Sh. Sermon Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Heard. Perused.
Court fees has not been filed. Ld. Counsel submits
that he shall file the same within 02 days.
Let the court fees be filed along with the PF
within 07 days, upon which, summons be issued to the
defendant, returnable on the NDOH.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has pressed upon the
application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC. He submits that there is an
apprehension that the defendants may create a third party interest
in the suit property. Hence, an injunction is sought regarding the
same.
Record perused.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the
plaintiff no. 1 Sh. Sanjit Roy Choudhary was the owner of the
suit property. The suit property i.e. Plot no. 121, Block-C,
Pocket no. 1, sector-37, Rohini, Delhi was alloted to the father of
the plaintiff no. 1 by the DDA vide an allotment letter dated
12.02.2018. Subsequently, Sh. Sanjit Roy Choudhary expired on
04.02.2020. The mother of the plaintiff no. 1 also expired on
04.08.2021. It is stated that under a misrepresentation by the
defendants that the father of the plaintiff no. 1 had handed over
the original documents of the suit property to the defendant no. 3
and had promised to transfer the said property to the defendant
-- 1 of 3 --
-: 2 :-
no. 3 or his nominee, the plaintiffs executed an Agreement to Sell
dated 08.12.2022 in the favour of the defendant no. 1. The
plaintiff also received an amount of Rs. 22,45,000/- from the
defendant no. 1 but later on, the defendant no. 3 informed the
plaintiff that his father Sh. Sanjit Roy Choudhary had executed
another agreement in the favour of one Smt. Janki Devi in
respect of the same property on 15.11.2018.
Hence, the defendants tried to intimidate the plaintiff
on the basis of this document. Hence, the defendants were
already aware of the said agreement dated 15.11.2018. Hence, it
became clear to the plaintiffs that they were trying to play a fraud
upon the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking
cancellation of the agreement dated 12.12.2022 as null and void.
It is stated that on the request of the defendants, a
sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- was returned by the plaintiffs in the
account of the defendant no. 3 as the defendant no. 1 and 2 did
not want that amount to be credited in their account for tax
purposes. For ensuring the protection the interest of the plaintiff,
the defendant no. 3 also executed a loan agreement dated
13.12.2022. Hence, the plaintiff has already returned the
substantive amount. However, there is an apprehension that the
defendants may misuse the Agreement to Sell dated 12.12.2022.
Hence, an interim order is sought that the defendants may be
restrained from using this agreement till the NDOH for any
purpose.
Record perused.
Considering the facts and circumstances, prima
facie, balance of convenience lies in the favour of the plaintiff.
Hence, the defendants are restrained from using the Agreement to
-- 2 of 3 --
-: 3 :-
Sell dated 12.12.2022 executed in respect of the suit property till
the NDOH for any purpose.
Provisions of under Order 39 rule 3 CPC be
complied with.
Put up for further proceedings on 19.07.2023.
Order be given dasti.
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
ADJ-03 (N/W)
Rohini Courts :Delhi/25.03.2023
-- 3 of 3 --