ANIL KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of plaintiff"s applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and another application under Order XL Rule 1 read with Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application of the Defendant no. 2 under order VII Rule 11 and in the alternative under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance in respect of flat No. GF-27, B-148, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi besides a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and for recovery of damages/mesne profits against the defendants. Plaintiff, Shri Karun Ansal, contended that shri Sushil Ansal is the brother of his father, Shri Deepak Ansal. Deepak ansal, Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal, Ansal brothers, were jointly in the management and control of Ansal Group of Companies including Ansal Properties and Industries Limited, defendant No. 1, and his father held majority share with his brother, Shri Gopal Ansal.

( 3 ) A family settlement was arrived at among the brothers with the object of giving separate ownership, management and control of companies to each brother and consequently, plaintiff"s father transferred all his shares in Ansal properties and Industries Limited to Shri Sushil Ansal, defendant No. 2 and his nominee.

( 4 ) A restructuring plan was executed for net worth equavalization of three flagship companies. The plaintiff contended that in 1988, defendant No. 1 proposed to construct a multi storey commercial building at plot No. B-148, statesman House, Barakhamba road, New Delhi comprising of independent flats and in that building he agreed to buy a commercial flat No. GF-27 comprising of 250 sq. feet. @ Rs. 3,500/- per sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 8,75,000/ -. According to plaintiff, agreement to sell in respect of said flat is reflected and evidenced by the allotment letter dated 15th October, 1990 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff in terms whereof defendants agreed to sell the said flat to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that besides the said flat he, his father, his mother, his brother and Deepak Ansal (HUF) also entered into similar agreements in respect of other flats in the same building. The plea of the plaintiff is that the entire consideration of Rs. 8,75,000/- was paid. In respect of other flats in his name and in the name of other family members and his HUF where his father is Karta, a total consideration of Rs. 94,71,550/- has been paid representing the payment of sale consideration of 11 flats which were agreed to be sold to the plaintiff and his family members.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff asserted that with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and his family members, the defendants had been threatening to allot the flats of plaintiff and his family members to EXIM Bank (i. e. , Export Import bank of India) and even a resolution to this effect was passed by the defendants necessitating a notice dated 21st March, 2000 sent by plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 and the Directors. In reply dated 22nd March, 2000 to the said notice, the defendant No. 1 confirmed that by reducing 2000 sq. ft from the area of EXIM Bank deal and adding to the already existing area with the company, the area of Shri gopal Ansal and Shri Deepak Ansal and their families would remain almost intact. According to plaintiff, thereafter despite assurances by the Directors of defendant No. 1, even after elapse of reasonable time, the possession of the flat was not given necessitating sending another notice dated 23rd May, 2002 calling upon the defendants to handover the possession of the flat to the plaintiff. In reply dated 5th June, 2002 to notice date 23rd May, 2002, the defendants raised a demand of Rs. 1,32,000,00/- for all the 11 flats of plaintiff and his family members and also stated that the defendants are agreeable to consider the matter on payment of said sum. The plaintiff"s plea is t