The plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience influenced the court's decision to confirm the interim order in favor of the plaintiff.

JAYANT NATH, J.

IA No. 2023/2016 u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) and 2379/2016 (u/O 39 R 4 CPC)

1. This suit is filed seeking specific performance, recovery and permanent & Mandatory Injunction and Recovery inter-alia seeking direction for Specific Performance of the Contract dated 07.11.2012 regarding the property, namely, 750 Sq. Yards out of 1000 Sq. Yards being part of Khasra No. 372 Min situated in Village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi now known as Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-II, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025. The plaintiff has filed the application being IA No. 2023/2016 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking an ex- parte ad- interim injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. This court on 11.02.2016 on the said application when the suit came up for hearing directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendants have filed IA No. 2073/2016 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the said stay order. The orders of this court dated 11.02.2016 and 29.02.2016 were challenged by the defendants in an appeal before the Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench by order dated 18.03.2016 disposed of the appeal directing that the application be placed before this court for hearing and the same be disposed of at an early date.

2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendants approached the plaintiff and apprised that they had entered into an agreement to sell and purchase dated 25.04.2011 with respect to 1000 Sq. Yards of the suit property with Sh. Ravinder Singh, Sh. Abdul Aziz and Mohd. Sualeh for a total consideration of Rs. 4.10 crores (hereinafter referred to as ‘the original owners’). It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 had paid Rs.50 lakhs to the said original owners at the time of the execution of the said agreement to sell dated 25.04.2011. It was pleaded that the defendant did not have the means to pay the balance sale consideration. Hence, defendant No. 1 offered to sell 250 Sq. Yards out of the proposed purchase of 500 Sq. Yards whereas defendant No. 2 offered to sell his entire share of 500 Sq. Yards to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the sum of Rs.50 lakhs that was paid by defendant No.2 to the original owners would be returned to the defendants and in addition, the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2.85 crores would be paid by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants jointly offered 750 Sq. Yards of the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,07,50,000/-. It is pleaded that pursuant to the said arrangement, defendant No.2 executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 08.05.2012 in favour of the plaintiff to file a suit against the original owners.

The plaintiff as attorney of defendants No.2 along with defendant No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the Contract dated 25.04.2011 being CS(OS) 1873/2013 titled as “Arshad Zamal Siddique & Anr. vs. Ravinder Singh & Ors.” (This may be referred to as the "First Suit”). On 27.06.2012 when the said suit came up for hearing, the court was pleased to issue summons and to restrain the defendants therein from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property subject to the plaintiff therein depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2.85 cores. It is stated that this amount was deposited by the plaintiff from his own account with the Registry of this court.

To avoid controversy, it was agreed that the agreement between the parties would be reduced in writing. Accordingly, a written agreement and other documents of transfer were said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and an agreement was hence signed on 07.11.2012. The defendants jointly also executed GPA, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, MOU, Acknowledgment-cum-receipt and receipt-cum-promissory note all dated 07.11.2012. Defendant No. 1 also separately executed such do