False and misleading statements regarding payments and readiness to perform obligations under an agreement can disqualify a party from obtaining relief. The irrevocability of an agreement is contingent upon the party's readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present applications have been filed by defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ad interim injunction order dated 22nd July, 2011.

2. Ms. Shilpa Chohan, learned counsel for defendant No.4 contended that plaintiffs had falsely stated at the time of passing of the interim order dated 22nd July, 2011 that the entire suit property bearing No. L-II-80, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 was a subject matter of the Agreement to Sell dated 28th July, 2008. She pointed out that the Agreement to Sell dated 28th July, 2008 only dealt with eighty per cent of the suit property and twenty per cent of the suit property belonging to defendant No.4 was never a part of the Agreement to Sell. Consequently, she submitted that the injunction order dated 22nd July, 2011 needed to be vacated.

3. Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, learned counsel for defendants No. 1 to 3 stated that the present suit had been filed on the basis of fabricated documents and false averments. He pointed out that the plaintiffs at the time of arguing the injunction application being I.A. 11386/2011 had falsely stated that plaintiffs had made payment of Rs.50,00,000/- to the defendants. He contended that cheque of Rs.34,79,000/- dated 12th May, 2011 was never tendered to the defendants. He stated that the plaintiffs falsely averred that the cheque of Rs.34,79,000/- had been encashed, even though on the said date they had zero bank balance.

4. Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, learned counsel also contended that the plaintiffs had wrongly stated that a draft sale deed was exchanged between the parties by E-mails dated 13th May, 2011 and 16th May, 2011. He stated that the aforesaid E-mails are fabricated. In support of his contention, he relied upon the report of Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, who opined that the aforesaid E-mails were sent from an I.D. which was not created from the defendants’ address, but was created from E-35, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024.

5. Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, learned counsel further stated that plaintiffs had erroneously stated in para 18 of the plaint that the suit property was on lease and that plaintiffs had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants’ tenant to vacate. He pointed out that there was no tenant in the property since last fifty years and, therefore, there was no question of paying Rs.5,00,000/- to any alleged tenant.

6. Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, learned counsel stated that plaintiffs had mischievously averred that they had made an additional payment of Rs.10,00,000/- on 14th May, 2009. He stated that though the receipt dated 14th May, 2009 bore the signatures of the defendants, its content were fabricated. According to him, the receipt dated 14th May, 2009 pertained to a separate loan transaction, whereas the present Agreement to Sell was cancelled on 31st August, 2008. In support of his contention that there were a number of loan transactions between the parties, he referred to another Cheque bearing No.08273 dated 13th January, 2009 which was given to defendant No.1 by the plaintiffs towards discharge of a friendly loan, which bounced due to ‘insufficient funds’. Mr. Chaudhary stated that plaintiffs had mischievously clubbed the friendly loan transaction cheque with the Agreement to Sell dated 28th July, 2008.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that in the application filed by the defendants, there was an admission to the extent that the Agreement to Sell dated 28th July, 2008 was executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 holding eighty per cent shares in suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and that an advance of Rs. 5,21,000/- had been paid by the plaintiffs. He submitted that the Agreement to Sell was irrevocable and that onus had been cast upon the defendants to get the suit property converted from leasehold to freehold. In this connection, he relied upon clauses 7 and 8 of the Agreement to Sell.

8. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary stated that as the def