( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4th October, 1993 have in this application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure prayed for an order of injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from entering into agreement of sale, parting with possession or creating third party interest in respect of property No . B-7/5, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. In addition, the plaintiffs had also prayed for restraining defendant No. 3 from selling by way of auction or otherwise the said property for recovery of the amount due from defendant No. l.

( 2 ) AN ad interim ex parte order of injunction, as prayed, was granted on 14th March, 1995 against defendants I and 2. In so far as defendant No. 3 is concerned, the order, as prayed, was passed subject to plaintiffs depositing a sum of Rs. 50,00,000. 00 in the Registry of this Court by 20th March, 1995.

( 3 ) THAT on 31st July, 1995, it was stated at the bar that plaintiff had not deposited the said amount of Rs. 50,00,000. 00 as per order dated 14th March, 1995. It was observed that since the amount had not been deposited, the order passed on 14th March, 1995 as against defendant No. 3 had become inoperative. The fact that amount of Rs. 50,00,000. 00 was not deposited was also confirmed by learned counsel for the plaintiff on 14th March, 1995.

( 42 ) PLAINTIFFS case is that the suit property is owned by defendant No. l, which has been constructed upon a plot of land granted by virtue of lease deed executed in his favour by President of India through Delhi Development Authority on 27th July, 1967. Defendant No. 2 is the attorney for defendant No. l. In 1993, defendant No. l through defendant No. 2 approached the plaitiff and offered to sell the property. Plaintiff was given to understand that the ground floor of the said property was in occupation of an Indonesian National since 1989 as a tenant and the first floor was in occupation of defendant No. 2 as a licencee. Because of the hindrances on the property, namely, occupation in the ground floor by a tenant and that defendant No. l was not in a position to pay Income Tax/wealth Tax dues, plaitnfif was approached wth offer to sell the property. As per the understandng, the plaintiff was required to get the said property vacated from occupants and also to clear dues of the Income Tax Department. After long negotiations, agreement to sell in writing was entered into on 4th October, 1993. The property was agreed to sold for a total consideration of Rs. 77,00,000. 00 out of which Rs. 5,00,000. 00 was paid. As per the agreement, a power to deal with Income Tax Department in as much as in obtaining the no objection c. ertificate under the provisions of Section 269ud of the Income Tax Act, transfer certificate and other formalities were also given to the plaintiff. Time was the essence of the agreement. Plaintiff applied for requisite certificates and the same was granted on 27th December, 1993. The plaintiff was informed that there were huge outstanding demands from Income Tax Department, which were to be realised from defendant No. 1, of which the property stood attached. Plaintiff informed defendant No. 2 of the department s claim against defendant No. 1. Plaintiff thereafter came in contact with defendant No. I through defendant No. 2 to comply with the agreement and to execute the sale deed. It is alleged that defendants failed to abide by the terms of the agreement and cause thereafter arose for filing the suit for specific performance. The suit is vehemently opposed by the defendants. It has been pleaded that plaintiff No. 2 is a builder and has commercial motive to make speculative gains. He had agreed to purchase the property on "as is whereis" basis out of the sale consideration plaitiff No. 2 had agreed to make payment directly to Income Tax Authorities since he was aware of the fact that property was under attachment for the Income Tax dues. Defend