( 1 ) BY this Order I shall dispose off the plaintiff s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Defendant s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for setting aside ex-party injunction.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present case for Specific performance of an Agreement for the purchase of properties bearing No. 25 and 26, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The execution of the Agreement is not in dispute. Plaintiff-No. 2 and the Defendant are siblings, and Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and the brother-in-law of the Defendants. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. In the Agreement dated 14th April, 1993, the total sale consideration was recorded as Rs. 20,00,000. 00 and an advance of Rs. l,00,000. 00was given. It was agreed that Rs. 5,00,000. 00 will be paid within three months and another Rs. 5,00,000. 00 within six months from the date of executing of this Agreement. It is further agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 9,00,000. 00 will be paid at the time of registration of the property.

( 3 ) THE further covenant was that the Defendant will obtain requisite clearance certificates from the appropriate Authorities under the Income Tax Act, the L. and D. O. , DDA, MCD etc. Till 4. 7. 1995, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 3,30,000. 00 by various instalments.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, by their letter dated. 9. 8. 1995, the Defendants reminded the plaintiff of the payment obligations already menntioned above, that is, they were required to pay Rs. 5,00,000. 00 within three months. They then stated that because of failure of the plaintiff to perform their part of the contract, the Defendants were entitled to revoke and rescind the Agreement forthwith forfeit the amount paid by the plaintiffs. They, however, on humanitarian grounds, enlarged time by one month, for payment of the balance amount under the Agreement. They further stated in this letter that on the plaintiffs failure, the Agreement would the rescinded and the amount forfeited. Thereafter, the Defendants have stated that since they have been "deprived by the utilisation of the benefits of the amount retained. . . . . . we are entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the default. " The plaintiffs immediately despatched a reply to this notice. They mentioned that they were lawful possession of the suit property since 1965 and the Agreement had no sanctity because it was a family matter. It was further stated that the Defendants had agreed that the money could be paid after disposing of the plaintiffs properties (351 and 352) and that there was no hurry on the part of the Defendants to receive the agreed amountthereafter the plaintiffs stated that the payment could not be made because they were unable to dispose of their own property.

( 5 ) A Legal Notice dated 24. 9. 1995 was, thereafter, issued by Shri S. P. Chugh, Advocate, wherein the statements made in the Defendant s letter were largely reiterated. The plaintiffs were notified that the Agreement to Sell dated 14. 4. 1993 stood revoked and rescinded and the amount paid by the plaintiff to the Defendants stood forfeited. The plaintiffs were requested to vacate the premises failing which monthly damages/mesne profits of Rs. 10,000. 00, would be legally recovered. As is to be expected, the issuance of the Legal notice evoked the response of a retort by the plaintiffs advocates: In variance to the stance adopted by the plaintiffs in their own letter, it was now denied that the plaintiffs had committed any default in performance of their part of the Agreement. For the first time the plaintiffs Advocate stated that the defendants had not mentioned they had applied for the sale permission as well as the permission under Sections 34 and 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act (sic ). It was, thereafter, denied that the Defendants could forfeit the amount received by them and/or claim any sum as damages. It was asserted that the plainti