Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 33
CS DJ 926/23
CHHAYA CHOUDHARY Vs. ROSHNI DEVI
20.07.2024
Present : Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh, ld counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Vandana Kumar, ld counsel for defendant no. 1
and 2.
None for defendant no. 3.
1. Submissions on the application of plaintiff under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC are heard.
2. The application was filed by the plaintiff with the
plaint seeking interim ex parte order thereby restraining the
defendants from selling, alienating or parting with the possession
or creating any third party interest in any manner what so ever in
the suit property i.e. three shops bearing no. 2, 3 and 4 situated at
ground floor in property no. 204, Block B, Sector 1, Avantika
Rohini, Delhi 85 and also restraining them for making any
alteration, addition or development in any manner what so ever in
it. After the service of defendants and disclosure that the suit
property has been sold to one Nirmala Devi, the plaintiff filed the
application to amend the suit and to implead her as party. The
said application was allowed. The plaintiff has not filed any new
application incorporating the name of defendant no. 3 for interim
reliefs. It is prayed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the earlier
application be considered for defendant no. 3 also.
3. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific
performance of an agreement to sell entered between her and
defendant no. 1 on 02.07.2023 orally and on 03.07.2023 in
writing. It is the averment of the plaintiff that the total sale
consideration was fixed at Rs. 36 lacs out of which Rs. 4 lacs was
-- 1 of 3 --
given to the defendant and the same was also mentioned in the
agreement to sell and the amount was paid to defendant no. 2
who is husband of defendant no. 1 and has signed the written
agreement dated 03.07.2023 as per directions of his wife. It is
averred that the balance amount was to be paid on or before
15.09.2023 by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 upon
completion of construction work at property under sale by her. It
is averred that the defendant no. 1 in place of completing the
construction work, she started putting pressure upon the plaintiff
to pay the further amount and the defendant no. 1 for herself and
through defendant no. 2 obtained/received a sum of Rs. 8 lacs out
of balance sale consideration amount on 27.09.2023 and
29.09.2023 even after the qualified due date. It is averred that in
all defendant no. 1 has received from the plaintiff a total sum of
Rs. 18 lacs in respect of sale and purchase of the suit property. It
is averred that on 14.10.2023 she has refused to perform her part
of contract and refused to execute the sale deed of the property in
favor of the plaintiff.
4. It is the submission of the counsel appearing for
defendant no. 1 and 2 that she is not having any objections to the
interim injunction however, the submissions/contentions made by
the plaintiff in the suit is not admitted as only Rs. 15 lacs have
been received from the plaintiff and the sum of Rs. 4 lacs
received as earnest money was forfeit as plaintiff failed to
perform her part of payment of balance sale consideration in due
time and legal notice was also issued to the plaintiff about
forfeiture of earnest money. It is averred that the defendant were
willing to pay an amount of Rs. 11 lacs to the plaintiff who never
come to collect the same. It is submitted that the defendant sold
-- 2 of 3 --
out the suit property as was in need of funds and under the
circumstances sold the property suffering loss.
5. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 20.10.2023
and the suit property has been sold by defendant no. 1 to
defendant no. 3 on 01.11.2023. The facts discloses that the
property is sold after filing of the suit. The plaintiff has alleged
that defendant no. 3 is altering the construction of the suit
property but no details of alteration are brought on file.
Considering the facts of the case, to avoid the multiplicity of the
cases and to protect subject matter of the suit, I am of the view
that the interim orders from the court are required. The defendant
no. 3 Smt. Nirmala Devi is hereby restrained from creating any
third party interest in the suit property i.e. three shops bearing no.
2, 3 and 4 situated at ground floor in property no. 204, Block B,
Sector 1, Avantika Rohini, Delhi 85 till the disposal of the suit.
The defendant no. 3 if raises any construction in the suit property
then the same will be hit by principle of law of lis pendence and
if the plaintiff is granted decree of specific performance of the
agreement then defendant no. 3 will not be entitled to raise any
objections qua the construction made by her in the suit property
after its purchase. The application stands disposed off
accordingly.
6. Put up on 09.10.2024 for completion of pleadings
and settlement of issues.
(SUNIL CHAUDHARY)
DJ-04, North West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
20.07.2024
-- 3 of 3 --