The court considered the existence of a prima facie case, the absence of irreparable loss to the respondent, and the balance of convenience in determining the outcome of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--By way of present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant/plaintiff has assailed order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned ADJ, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 932/2022, vide which the application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim stay was dismissed.

2. Mr. Yashpal Sehrawat, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant had filed the underlying suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 12.12.2020 executed between him and respondent No.1/defendant. It is further submitted that the said Agreement was executed when respondent No.1 had approached the appellant's father and proposed to sell his property i.e. plot bearing No. 412-B, area measuring 250 Sq. Yds. (Size 30 X 75), out of Khasra no. 14/19/1, situated in revenue estate of village Pandwala Kalan, Delhi state, Delhi Abadi known as Shri Hans Nagar Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter, the `suit property'). The suit property was statedly sold on the basis of bayana receipt issued in favour of respondent No.1 by one Ram Babu, the previous owner thereof. It is averred that the sale consideration of Rs.10 lacs stood paid to respondent No.1 in the following manner:

i) Rs.1 lac were paid to respondent No.1 on 23.06.2020 (through net banking),

ii) Rs.1 lac were transferred by the appellant on 24.06.2020 (through net banking),

iii) Rs.4 lacs were transferred on 22.07.2020 through RTGS,

iv) Rs.4 lacs were paid through cash in five installments.

Following the agreement between the parties, documents in the form of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will were registered in favour of the appellant. However, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the sale deed could not be registered before the competent authority. Learned counsel states that the appellant has since claimed possession of the suit property in his favour. It is also claimed that on 25.07.2022, the appellant lost original documents against which a complaint being LR No. 628406/22 dated 25.07.2022 was filed in P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi.

3. Per contra, Ms. Suman Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is contended that the appellant's father, being a broker, had brokered the deal between respondent No.1 and Ram Babu. During the process of preparation of sale documents, he also prepared documents in favour of the appellant thereby showing the sale of the suit property in his favour. It is also submitted that both the sale transactions were of the same date.

4. On a specific query, respondent No.1 has not been able to explain as to for what purpose the amounts, transferred by way of bank transactions, were received in his account. It has been stated that the parties were known to each other for a long time, and therefore, there were many loan transactions. However, neither any averment to this effect nor any document in that regard have come on record.

5. After going through the pleadings and the documents, this Court is of the prima facie view that the appellant has been able to show existence of a prima facie case in his favor. Further, no irreparable loss is likely to be caused to respondent No.1 if interim stay is granted in favour of the appellant. The balance of convenience is also in favor of the appellant.

6. Accordingly, keeping in view the nature of the suit, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the title, possession and construction of the suit property.

7. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms alongwith pending miscellaneous application.