1. By this petition, Smt. Harvinder Kaur, the defendant in the present suit, seeks review and recall of the order dated 5th August, 2011. It is necessary to deal with certain essential facts which are necessary for adjudication of the present review petition.

2. According to the plaint, Mr. Amit Jain, plaintiff in the present case, entered into an agreement to sell dated 16th October, 2010 with Smt. Harvinder Kaur for purchasing the property bearing new no.IX/1312 Mandir Wali Gali, (Old No.319/13-14, Plot No.45), Gandhi Nagar, Delhi ad measuring 100 sq. yards consisting of a built up ground floor; front half portion at the first floor and second floor and all rights over the roof; as specifically shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as ”suit property”) for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,09,50,000/-. The plaintiff claims to have made payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash being a total of Rs.11,00,000/- towards part payment of the consideration. Rest of the amount was to be payable on or before the 5th January, 2011 at the time of handing over of physical vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

3. On 15th December, 2010, the plaintiff claims to have heard rumours of some disputes amongst family members of the previous/ex-owners of the suit property and sought necessary clarification from the defendant. The plaintiff received assurance from the defendant and her husband that the suit property was free from all encumbrances and that there was no dispute over the suit property; that the rumours about the dispute if any, between the ex owners shall have no bearing on the right, title and interest of the defendant over the property. The defendant was claiming right and title in the property under a sale deed dated 15th September, 2010, executed in her favour by Mr. Trilochan Singh and Mr. Harinder Pal Singh. The defendant provided crossed copies of the registered documents of the chain of title to the plaintiff.

4. On 18th December, 2010, the defendant cited some exigency and requested the plaintiff for further payment of Rs.19,00,000/-.

However, the plaintiff did not accede to the request of the defendant on account of rumours and decided to go strictly by the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff claims that thereafter the defendant avoided the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. On the request of the defendant and her husband, time to execute the sale deed was mutually extended by one month i.e. till 5th February, 2011. The plaintiff claims that on 21st January, 2011, he came to know that the defendant and her husband were approaching other property dealers of the area to sale out the property and understood that the defendant had dishonest intention due to which they were avoiding the plaintiff and approaching the other property dealers.

5. In para 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff asserts that on conducting enquiries, he came to understand that in order to avoid fulfillment of her contractual obligation towards the plaintiff under the agreement dated 16th October, 2010 of her husband, the defendant had set up a frivolous and fictitious dispute in connivance with the previous owners of the suit property so as to compel the plaintiff to withdraw his claims and rights over the same and not to seek enforcement and compliance of the agreement dated 15th October, 2010. It is complained that the defendant and her family members were bent upon breaching the agreement to sell and to cheat the plaintiff; that the breach is exclusively on the part of the defendant and that the plaintiff was always ready to comply with the agreement on his part subject to fulfillment of reciprocal conditions on the part of the defendant.

6. The defendant had filed a Caveat No.126/2011 and consequently, on receipt of advance copy of the plaint, was represented before the court on 11th February, 2011 when the suit was