The impugned order was premature and granted final relief at an interlocutory stage, falling foul of the principle that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the ADJ-07 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dated 07.03.2019 in Suit No.54/2016, whereby the Trial Court has directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property.

Facts

2. The suit arises out of an Agreement to Sell dated 07.01.2016 between the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the respondent for specific performance of the said agreement. Pursuant to submissions of the parties held in various orders, the Trial Court by the impugned order recorded that the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed despite having undertaken before the Court to do so, and consequently appointed a Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendant. The sale deed has since been executed by the Local Commissioner in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The principal grievance of the petitioner in these proceedings is that the Trial Court has virtually executed the order of specific performance even in the absence of a decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement to sell expressly indicated that the defendant wished to construct an additional floor on the suit premises, and stipulated that the plaintiff would permit the defendant to erect four pillars in the suit property to enable such construction on the first floor. The suit property is admittedly a shop on the ground floor of the premises in question. It has been submitted that the plaintiff did not cooperate in the construction sought to be raised and has, after the execution of the sale deed pursuant to the impugned order, in fact filed a suit against the defendant for an injunction restraining the defendant from raising the construction.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court has appointed a Local Commissioner in view of the repeated statements of the defendant that he would execute the sale deed, which he failed to do despite sufficient opportunities being granted. As far as the construction is concerned, it is submitted that the agreement only records the plaintiff’s consent to the erecting of four pillars on the ground floor, which has been done. It is submitted that the defendant has not obtained a sanctioned plan from the Municipal Corporation, as a result of which the plaintiff has sought an injunction against the proposed construction.

5. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, the relevant clauses of the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2016 are reproduced below:

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

1. That the total sale consideration agreed between the parties is Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven lacs fifty Thousand Only) out of which Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) will be retained by the second party for providing repairs in the shop. The Ist party may raise four pillars of 9” x 12’ from inside the Shop No. 698 to raise construction above it.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

3. That out of total sale consideration, Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six Lacs only) have already been paid by the second party to the first party and the first party acknowledges the same to have been received.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

5. That a period of two years w.e.f. the date of execution of this agreement has been fixed/settled & the first party shall be bound to execute the sale deed in respect of the shop No. 698, Ground Floor, Haveli Azam Khan, Bazar Chitli Qubar, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006 on or before, the expiry of the period of two years.

6. That the balance consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five Lacs only) shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

8. That, in case, first party fails to execute the sale deed on or before the expiry of two years as fixed aforesaid, the second party shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed through court of law at the expenses of first party.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

[Emphasis supplied]

6. The suit was filed on 12.04.2016 f