1. Courts are intended to be temples of justice, roads for redressal, and not houses for harassment. A judge will never be able to palate litigation being vulgarized as a vehicle of victimization. He will scarcely stand idle when he perceives the jural system being employed as an instrument of oppression of an innocent citizen. Given the disturbing reality of decades of pendency of litigation, resulting largely from an exponential explosion of litigation in response to which the imperative of an increase in the strength of judges is startlingly absent, the judge must innovate; he must discover avenues which will minimize the malaise of delay in decision even if it entails routing away for practices which were hitherto fore commonplace. One genre of cases which the judge increasingly countenances are suits for specific performance of ostensible contracts for conveyance of immovable property and this class of lis is severely clogging the courts. Dismissing interlocutory injunction pleas in this category of cases is not adequate amelioration, principally because of the doctrine of lis pendens, which finds statutory expression in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 („TP Act? for brevity).

2. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.5.2008 passed in CS(OS) No.1528/2007. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed a suit for Specific Performance, permanent and temporary Injunction in respect of immovable property bearing No.243, Okhla Industrial Estate-III, New Delhi. By the impugned Order the learned Single Judge has rejected IA No.9469/2007 filed by the Plaintiff seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. IA No.13550/2007 filed by the Defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for vacation of the status quo order has been allowed. However, IA No.13551/2007 filed by the Defendant, praying for the rejection of the Plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action has also been dismissed; against which no appeal has been filed.

3. The Plaintiff?s suit is predicated on the following document, which is admitted:-

RECEIPT

Received from Mohan Overseas(P) Ltd., Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi through its Managing Director Sh. Sunder Kukreja a sum of Rs.21,00,000- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Only) in the following manner towards part payment of sale of property No.243, measuring 1211 sq. yards, Okhla Industrial Estate-III, New Delhi. The total sale consideration of the subject property is Rupees 11,90,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore Ninety Lacs Only). Cash 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) Cheque No.615714 of Rupees 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Only) of Standard Chartered Bank.

The brief terms of this sale are as under:

1. The total sale consideration is Rupees 11,90,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore Ninety Lacs Only).

2. The seller Goyal Tin & General Industries is partnership firm, having its office at 39 Okhla Industrial Estate-III, New Delhi, consisting of currently three partners, namely 1)Sh. Ramesh Kumar Miglani s/o Sh. Uttam Chand Miglani 2)Sh. Rajat Miglani s/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Miglani and 3) Sh. Rishi Miglani s/o Sh. Ramesh Miglani, all residents of W-55, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Sh. Ramesh Miglani has represented that he is fully authorized to finalise this sale agreement and that his acts and deeds are binding on Goyal Tin & General Industries and all its partners. Sh.Rakesh Miglani has further represented that the subject property no.243 Okhla Industrial Estate-III is free from all mortgages, lien, prior sale, gift, attachment etc.

3. The buyer or his nominee(s) shall pay the entire sale consideration within (five) months from this date whichever is later. The seller shall deliver all the relevant documents to the buyer from time to time.

4. A proper agreement to sell between the parties will be executed shortly.

4. It has not been denied that thereafter an Agreement to Sell on a non-j