1. The Plaintiff has filed CS(OS) No.2169/2009 praying for Specific Performance and injunction pertaining to immovable property bearing No.B-35, Friends Colony(West), New Delhi by virtue of a Collaboration Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between the parties on 11.9.2007. In terms of this Agreement, a sum of Rupees 21,00,000/- had been paid by the Plaintiff/Appellant to the Defendant/Respondent. The Collaboration Agreement envisaged that upon completion of construction on the plot of land, the Plaintiff would be owners of the Basement, Ground Floor with Front Lawn and Rear Courtyard, Second Floor along with Terrace over the entire Second Floor, two servant quarters with common W.C. on the top terrace, two car parking spaces in the driveway, use of common areas, facilities and services. The Defendants were entitled to the title and possession of the First Floor together with a sum of Rupees 2.25 crores. The Plaint asserts that the Defendant has committed willful breach of the Collaboration Agreement and the MoU. The Plaintiff has quantified the damages at Rupees 3.5 crores.

2. The Plaint discloses that the property has not been converted from leasehold to freehold and possession thereof has not been handed-over to the Plaintiff. In other words, the construction has not progressed beyond the initial payment/receipt of Rupees 21,00,000/-.

3. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, had pressed the interim injunction prayed for which was for restraining the Defendant from transferring, selling, disposing off, alienating, encumbering or parting with possession or creating any third party interest in the suit property. The learned Single Judge has also noted the argument of learned counsel for the Defendant that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as a collaboration or building of agreement or MoU is not enforceable and, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. Nevertheless, even in the face of this submission made by learned counsel for the Defendant, the learned Single Judge has directed the Defendant not to create any third party interest in the suit property, subject, however, to the Plaintiff depositing the remaining consideration of Rupees 1,74,00,000/-.

4. Mr.Sethi contends that the direction for deposit of the balance sale consideration is beyond the powers of the learned Single Judge.

5. In the conspectus of the case, Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('SR Act' for short) assumes grave proportions. The first sub-section declares that the Court is not bound to grant such relief which is inherently discretionary in nature. Interference by the Appellate Court is justified only if this exercise manifests perversity. Section 14 of the SR Act mentions contracts which cannot be specifically enforced. It states that where the suit is for enforcement of a contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any work, the Courts are not obliged to grant Specific Performance of contract. However, the situation becomes flexible if the Plaintiff has a substantial interest in the performance of the contract and the interest is of such a nature that compensation for money for non-performance of the contract is not an adequate relief. The payments made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant are approximately five percent. This would not reflect “substantial interest”. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has already made a claim for Rupees 3.5 crores by way of damages.

6. Speaking for the Division Bench of this Court, one of us (Vikramajit Sen, J.) had considered all the complexities of a claim for specific performance of a contract in a batch of matters in which the lead case was FAO(OS) No.252/2008 entitled Mohan Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Goyal Tin & General Industries. Mr. Sethi has placed reliance in Ansal Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anand Nath, ILR 1992 Delhi 540. We must straightaway mention that the Plaintiff in that case was alread