Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The plaintiff had instituted the present suit, originally against the defendant no.1 only, pleading (i) that the plaintiff and the defendant Company had certain business transactions and pursuant to that, around September / October, 2007 the defendant permitted the plaintiff permissive use and occupation of the first floor of property No.9, Masjid Moth, Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, to enable the plaintiff to set-up its office therein and handed over peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff; (ii) the defendant further agreed that the plaintiff shall have first option to purchase the entire said property; (iii) that on the assurances and representations of the defendant, the plaintiff after entering into possession made substantial improvements in the suit premises and spent several lacs of rupees; the plaintiff changed the entire flooring and installed tiles on the flooring; (iv) the plaintiff started running its export division office from the said first floor with the express consent and permission of the defendant Company that the plaintiff shall have permissive use and possession and first option to purchase the entire property; (v) around June, 2010 the defendant created hindrance and obstructed the employees of the plaintiff from accessing the terrace where the water tanks were situated; the plaintiff filed a Police complaint against the defendant on 4th June, 2010 and with the intervention of the Police the plaintiff was permitted access to the terrace; that on 3rd August, 2010 the defendant confirmed that the said first floor is under the possession of Shri Motilal Bothra and Shri M.K. Jalan, Chairman of the plaintiff Company and agreed that the plaintiff shall have the first option to buy the said property and 30% of sale proceeds of the said building shall be given to Mr. M.K. Jalan; and, (vi) on 24th October, 2011 when the employees of the plaintiff came in the morning they found that the security guards of the defendant had locked the main door thereby creating a hindrance in the egress and ingress of the plaintiff; again on 25th October, 2011 the employees of the plaintiff found the main door locked and the plaintiff could not get access to the staircase leading to the first floor; that the Police failed to take any action.

The plaintiff accordingly on or about 1st November, 2011 instituted the present suit (a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from blocking the egress and ingress of the plaintiff and its employees to the first floor of the property or creating any hindrance or hurdle in use thereof; and, (b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to comply with their obligations.

2. Summons of the suit were issued on 4th November, 2011. Though the plaint was accompanied by IA.No.17739/2011 for interim relief restraining the defendant from obstructing the access of the plaintiff and its employees to the first floor of the premises but no ex parte ad interimrelief was granted in favour of the plaintiff. On the next date i.e. 17th November, 2011 the counsel for the then sole defendant informed of the property having been sold to the defendant no.2 M/s. Compass Tracom Pvt. Ltd. vide Sale Deed dated 4th August, 2011; accordingly the said M/s. Compass Tracom Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as defendant no.2 and vide order of the same date a Court Commissioner was appointed to report as to who is in possession of the first floor and to also prepare an inventory of articles lying on the first floor and to take photographs. Vide ad interimorder of the same date the parties were also restrained from creating third party interest in respect of the first floor till further order. Vide subsequent order dated 13th December, 2011 the parties were directed to maintain status quowith respect to the possession of the property.

3. The plaintiff thereafter applied for amendment to, in addition to the relief already claimed, claim reliefs of, specifi