( 1 ) [ed facts : Plaintiff obtained plot no. 5/60, W. E. A. , Ramjas Road on 27. 8. 43 and built upon it. Pff. agreed to sell it to Defts. 1 and 2 on 9. 2. 81 and 14. 4. 81. He executed two Power-of- Attorneys in favour of Deft. 3 (wife of Deft. 1 ). Deft. 3 then sold the properly to Defts. 1 and 2 who then sold the same to Deft. 4. Pff. then by a Regd notice cancelled the POA in favour of Deft. 3. He then sued Defts. alleging that DDA had refused permission to sell and agreement became frustrated and he was entit- led to forfeit money received and possession be restored to him. He filed an application for interim injunction]. After detailing above, order is :

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the pff. had cancelled the power of attorneys executed in favour of deft. No. 3 and thus, deft. No. 3 had no legal right to execute the sale deed in favour of defts. 1 and 2 acting as attorney of the pff. It is not disputed before me that the entire sale consideration had been received by the pff and the pff. had transferred possession of the plot in question to deft. 1 and 2 at the time of execution of the agreements for sale on receipt of the sale consid