The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as well as the lack of irreparable loss and injury, are crucial in determining entitlement to specific performance.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The plaintiff has, in this suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, filed these applications for relief of restraining the defendants from alienating, selling or creating third party rights or parting with possession of property No. 29, Block B-2 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi subject matter of Agreement of Sale and also for directing the defendants to furnish security to secure the alternative relief of recovery of double the earnest money, claimed in the suit.

.2. It is the admitted position that an Agreement to Sell dated 16th January, 2006 with respect to the aforesaid property was executed by the defendants as owner in favour of the plaintiff. The terms of the said agreement relevant for the present were as under:

.(i) The total sale consideration was Rs 1,11,21,000/-;

.(ii) The defendants had raised a loan of Rs 47 lacs from the Citi Financial Bank by equitable mortgage of the said property;

(iii) The plaintiff paid Rs 11 lacs prior to / at the time of agreement to sell by way of earnest money and the balance sum of Rs 1,00,21,000/- was payable as under:

.(i) Rs 20 lacs on or before 7th February, 2006 which was to be used for reimbursement of the loan aforesaid.

.(ii) Another sum of Rs 27 lacs paid in the first week of March, 2006 to be also used by the defendants for reimbursement of the balance loan aforesaid

(iii) The balance Rs 53,21,000/- was payable on or before 10th April, 2006 at the time of execution and registration of transfer documents.

.(iv) That upon payment of total consideration of Rs 58 lacs by the second week of March, 2006, the defendants were to hand over the vacant possession of the ground floor to the plaintiff and within 15 days thereof also hand over the original documents of the property to the plaintiff after getting the same released from the bank aforesaid. The physical possession of the remaining property was to be handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff only on receipt of entire sale consideration.

(v) The defendants had assured the plaintiff that the property was free from all sorts of encumbrances, charge or lien such as sale, gift, court decree, attachment etc (except the above mentioned mortgage with Citi Financial Bank).

.(vi) That if the defendants were to infringe any of the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was entitled either to sue for specific performance at the costs and expenses of the defendants or to get refunded double the amount of earnest money alongwith part payment, if any, made.

3. It is further the admitted position that the defendants got issued a legal notice dated 13th April, 2006 to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff had failed to make any payment after the Agreement to Sell; in spite of repeated reminders of the defendants and informing the plaintiff that the earnest money paid of Rs 11 lacs had been forfeited. The plaintiff replied to this legal notice on 20.04.2006 stating that the plaintiff was induced to enter into the agreement on the specific assurance that the construction of the demised property was within the parameters of law and the defendants had undertaken to produce within a week the supporting and title documents but had failed to do so; the High Court of Delhi had taken cognizance of large scale illegal construction in Delhi which cautioned the plaintiff and the plaintiff had insisted upon production of sanctioned plan and completion certificate, which the defendants had failed to produce. The plaintiff in the said reply further alleged that the plaintiff had in first week of March, 2006 come across the fact that the property was covered to the extent of 95% in contravention of the building bye laws and was liable to be demolished. The plaintiff thus alleged the defendants to be in breach of the agreement and called upon the defendants to perform the agreement by producing and substantiating the legality of the construction.

4. The plaintiff, thereafter, on or about 1