DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant / plaintiff and is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellant / plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as CM No.3769/2005. The aforesaid appellant / plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell allegedly entered into between the appellant / plaintiff and the respondents / defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of the property No.60, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi measuring 819 sq. yds. or, in the alternative, for recovery of damages in respect of the said property. Along with the suit the appellant / plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an ad interim injunction in respect of the aforesaid suit property. An interim order was also granted on the said application by the learned Single Judge on 11th May, 2005 directing for maintenance of status quo to be maintained in respect of the suit property. The said application along with the suit was listed subsequently before the learned Single Judge when an order came to be passed directing the plaintiff / appellant herein to appear in court along with the documents to show that the appellant / plaintiff was capable of making the payment of Rs.9.30 crores, which was allegedly the sale consideration in respect of the suit property and also to produce income tax returns and pass book of the banks maintained by the appellant / plaintiff. On perusal of all the documents filed, the learned Single Judge held under order dated 4th August, 2005 that in one of the accounts of the appellant / plaintiff the balance amount as on 31st March, 2005 was Rs.4146/- and that in respect of another account, the balance amount was Rs.2304/-. It was also observed that there also appeared to be huge transaction running into crores of rupees which was found to be rather strange as the appellant / plaintiff is a house wife. In terms of the records produced the learned Single Judge held that he was not satisfied that the appellant / plaintiff was in a position to pay Rs.9.30 crores to the respondents / defendants. Consequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application seeking ad interim order of injunction directing for maintenance of status quo.

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant / plaintiff filed an appeal before this court, which was registered as FAO (OS) No.243/2005. Before the appellate court also further documents were filed by the appellant / plaintiff. In the light of the documents placed on the record, the learned Division Bench held that the matter would require a deeper consideration. Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th August, 2005 dismissing the application was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties on the basis of the documents filed on record. Consequent thereto, the application was again taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge and on consideration of all the documents placed on record and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, the application was once again dismissed holding the same to be without any merit.

3. Counsel appearing for the parties have taken us through the entire records of the case including the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge which is challenged before us. A bare perusal of the said impugned order would indicate that the learned Single Judge has discussed indepth the respective case of the parties. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, has been set out. The defence taken by the respondents / defendants No.1,2 and 3, who filed a common written statement, has also been discussed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment and order. After discussing the respective case of the parties, the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document