1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application IA No.7020/2006 filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Code, for short). By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the application IA No.7544/2006 under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code and vacated the ex parte, ad interim injunction granted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff.

2. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant for possession of ground floor of the property bearing No.L-58A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Relief of injunction is also prayed for.

.3. The learned Single Judge while issuing summons in the suit had granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in the application bearing No.7020/2006 directing that status quo be maintained by the parties with respect to the suit property. The defendant-respondent thereafter appeared in the suit and filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code praying for vacation of the injunction order and bringing to the notice of the Court that there has been suppression of material facts by the plaintiff-appellant in the plaint.

4. The learned Single Judge considered the two applications for grant of injunction and also for vacation of ex-parte injunction and on consideration of the records, came to the finding that the plaintiff-appellant has suppressed the Agreement to Sell dated 8th July, 2004, which was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 and one Sh.Preet Singh with respect of sale of the entire ground floor of the suit property in respect of which ad interim ex parte injunction was obtained. It was held that the execution of the sale agreement was witnessed even by the sons of the plaintiff and, therefore, such suppression of material facts are itself ground for dismissal of the application for stay, if not dismissal of the entire suit.

5. The learned Single Judge has further recorded that the sale consideration for the property was fixed at Rs.21.60 lacs and that in respect of the Agreement to Sell no statement was made in the plaint. In the plaint, no reference was made to acknowledgment and receipt of Rs.9 lacs issued by the appellant-plaintiff in favour of the respondent-defendant no.2.

6. A possession letter was also executed by the plaintiff-appellant by virtue of which the entire physical possession was handed over to Mr.Amar Chand Goyal- defendant no.2 as well as Mr.Preet Singh.

7. On 10th July, 2004, a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff and a receipt dated 10th July, 2004, witnessed by Mr.Ashok Kumar Wadhwa, the younger son of the plaintiff has been placed on record. A further sum of Rs. 60,000/- was also paid for which another receipt was issued and the said receipt is also signed by the son of the appellant-plaintiff. These facts are not stated by the plaintiff in the suit. The aforesaid findings which are recorded by the learned Single Judge are challenged in this Appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant states that non-mentioning of the aforesaid facts would not justify dismissal of the injunction application as the said facts were not required to be considered at the stage of grant of injunction and the only question required to be examined was whether or not the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction and whether or not he has been able to satisfy the three principles for obtaining injunction. He also states that there are certain observations against the conduct of the appellant in the aforesaid order which could affect him in the trial.

9. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid contentions are mis- placed. Admittedly, there was an Agreement to Sell dated 8th July, 2004 for sale of the suit property for Rs.21.40 lacs and payment of Rs. 9 lacs was made pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement to Sell. Thereafte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document