( 1 ) THIS appeal by Sanjay Tandon, plaintiff-appellant, is directed against the order dated November 21, 1996 of learned Single Judge whereby No. 879/96 filed by him under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was dismissed.

( 2 ) SUIT has been filed by the appellant, inter alia, alleging that Sarabjit Singh, defendant respondent No. 1, is the owner of the property bearing No. A-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi and he was interested to dispose of the property. As respondent No. 1 is residing in USA, by executing a Special Power of Attorney dated September 30, 1995, he appointed Bhupinder Singh defendant-respondent No. 2, as his attorney. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement to sell dated October 25, 1995, with the appellant. Under this agreement to sell the aforesaid property A-196 was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 45 lacs, out of which a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid by the appellant as earnest money through Pay Order No. 186395 dated October 24, 1995, in favour of respondent No. 1 which was duly encashed by him. It is further alleged that towards the balance sale consideration Rs. 17,50,000. 00 were to be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1 on or before November 24, 1995 and the remaining sum of Rs. 22,50,000. 00 was to be received by respondent No. 1 from the appellant at the time of registration of sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi on or before January 31, 1996. It is stated that appellant handed over a cheque bearing No. 116818 dated November 18, 1995, in the sum of Rs. 17,50,000. 00 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, favouring respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. Initially respondent No. 2 accepted the cheque but returned it to the appellant with a covering letter dated November 20, 1995 on the ground that respondent No. 1 himself was coming to Delhi on or around 2nd week of January 1996 and he would get the entire amount of sale consideration himself from the appellant. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 reached India on or about 2nd week of January 1996 and since then the appellant has been requesting him to accept the second instalment of Rs. 17,50,000. 00 and also to intimate the date when the balance payment is to be made by him against the execution of the sale-deed by respondent No. 1.

HOWEVER, respondent No. 1 for reasons best known to him neither accepted the said amount, nor intimated the appellant as to when he would execute the sale deed of the aforesaid property in favour of the appellant and accept the balance sale consideration. Appellant has been ready and willing throughout to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement to sell dated October 25, 1995. It was prayed that a decree for specific performance be passed directing respondent No. 1 to execute sale deed in regard aforesaid property No. A-196, Defence Colony, in favour of the appellant.

( 3 ) IN the suit IA No. 879/96 was also filed by the appellant and on January 29, 1996, an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was passed by learned Single Judge against respondent No. 1 from taking any further steps to sell the suit property to any third party till further orders.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. It is not denied that respondent No. 1 is the owner of property No. A-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi and that he wanted to sell it. However, it is alleged that respondent No. 2 who is related to respondent No. 1, represented that he could get suitable offers from persons, who may be genuinely interested in buying the said property. In this background respondent No. 1 executed Special Power of Attorney dated September 30, 1995, in U. S. A. in favour of respondent No. 2. Under this Special Power of Attorney respondent No. 2 was authorised only to negotiate and to facilitate the sale of the property. It is stated that the alleged agreement to sell dated October 25, 1995, is a