The relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted for enforcing contractual obligations, and the suit must comply with the law relating to specific performance of contracts.

1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order (dated 22nd October, 2016 in CS No.618819/16 (219/16) of the Court of Additional District Judge-09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the application of the petitioner/defendant no.1 as well as the application of the respondents/defendants no.2 to 4, both under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued.

3. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1, the counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the counsel for the respondents/defendants no.2 to 5 have been heard.

4. The counsel for the respondents/defendants no.2 to 5 states that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was on behalf of all the defendants no.2 to 5 who are respondents no.2 to 5 herein and not merely on behalf of defendants no.2 to 4 as erroneously recorded in the impugned order.

5. The respondent no.1/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this petition arises, pleading (i) that the petitioner/defendant no.1 and the respondent no.1/plaintiff and six others had executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16th May, 2011 for purchase of properties no.643-648 and 674-675 with freehold land total ad measuring 446.46 sq. mtrs. situated in Gali Gurudwara, Farash Khana behind G.B. Road, Delhi from the lawful owners thereof; (ii) that as per the MoU dated 16th May, 2011, the respondent no.1/plaintiff and six others were to invest their funds for purchase of the property and the petitioner/defendant no.1 was not to contribute any monies for purchase of the property; (iii) in pursuance to the aforesaid MoU, Sale Deed dated 30th June, 2011 was executed by the owners of the aforesaid properties in favour of the petitioner/defendant no.1; (iv) that as per the MoU dated 16th May, 2011, the old construction on the properties was demolished and new construction raised after obtaining sanction from the concerned authorities; (v) the petitioner/defendant no.1, the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the aforesaid six others executed another MoU dated 15th July, 2011 distributing share of each one in the newly constructed property; (vi) that as per the said MoU dated 15th July, 2011 (in which petitioner/defendant No.1 was described as ‘party No.1’ and the respondent No.1/plaintiff was described as ‘party No.2’), the petitioner/defendant no.1 also, though had not contributed anything to the purchase price of the property, was also allocated a share in the property and clause 2 of the said MoU dated 15th July, 2011 was as under:-

“It is agreed that the party no.1 shall transfer and conveyed the portion ½ undivided share in upper ground floor in property bearing no.643 to 648 and 674–675, situated in Gali Gurudwara, Farash Khana, behind G.B. Road, Delhi – 06, out of total measuring 446.46 sq. mtr. without roof/terrace right as per proposed site plan of the property and also the portion as ½ undivided share on the roof of the second floor of the property in the name of the party no.2 Mohd. Nabi by registered sale deed before the Sub-Registrar Delhi”.

(vii) that though the petitioner/defendant no.1 in accordance with the aforesaid MoU dated 15th July, 2011 has executed Sale Deeds of the portions allocated to the five others in favour of the five others but has not executed the Sale Deed of the portion allocated to the respondent no.1/plaintiff and one Mohd. Afaq, inspite of repeated requests; and, (viii) that on 18th June, 2016, the respondent no.1/plaintiff found construction activity to have commenced in the portion of the property, which under the MoU clause aforesaid, was to be allocated to the respondent no.1/plaintiff and realised that the petitioner/defendant no.1 has executed Sale Deeds of the said portion in favour of the respondents/defendants no.2 to 5.

6. On the aforesaid pleas, the respondent no.1/plaintiff, in the suit, claimed the reliefs of (i) declaration tha