The court affirmed that consistent readiness to perform contractual obligations supersedes delays due to external factors, justifying the grant of specific performance and interim injunction.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

I.A. 16279/2022

1. Notice on this application was issued to the defendants by the order of this Court dated 07.10.2022. On the said date, the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 had entered appearance and accepted notice on behalf of the defendant no.1. Notice was, therefore, to be served on the defendant nos.2 to 4.

2. The Office Report indicates that the report of service on the remaining defendants is awaited. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, however, pleaded that in absence of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the plaintiff apprehends that a third-party interest may be created in the property in question, and, therefore, prays for grant of an ad interim relief.

3. He has also drawn my attention to the Power of Attorney executed by the defendant nos.2 to 4 in favour of the defendant no.1, which, inter alia, authorizes the defendant no.1 to appear for them, including sign a vakalatnama.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that the defendant no.1 possesses only 40% of share in the subject-property. The Power of Attorney(ies) in favour of the defendant no. 1 stand revoked by the defendant nos.2 to 4. He submits that, therefore, the consideration of the present application and the prayer of the plaintiff for the grant of an ad interim injunction must be considered by this Court only when all the defendants are duly served.

5. I have considered the submissions made. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out a case for grant of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction so as to protect the status quo of the property till the defendant nos. 2 to 4 enter appearance and are heard in detail with respect to their defence. In this regard, I am also influenced by the fact that the entire dealing/correspondence with respect to the transaction in question has been carried out with the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1, who is duly represented. The order passed today is only ad-interim in nature and can always be revisited by this Court on hearing the remaining defendants as and when they are duly served with the Suit and enter their appearance.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 17.11.2018 (hereinafter referred to as `the Agreement') with respect to the property bearing no. B-237B, admeasuring 281 Sq. Yards, situated at Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048 (hereinafter referred to as the `subject-property') with Late Shri Arjan Nath (the father of the defendants). The Agreement was executed by the defendant no.1, who was Power of Attorney holder of late Shri Arjan Nath.

7. The Sale Consideration agreed to be paid by the plaintiff under the Agreement was Rs.12.25 Crore (Rupees Twelve Crore Twenty-Five Lakh only). The Agreement records that out of the said Sale Consideration, Rs.1 Crore (Rupees One Crore only) stands paid to the Vendor, while remaining amount of Rs.11.25 Crore (Rupees Eleven Crore Twenty-Five Lakh only) shall be received by the Vendor from the Vendee at the time of handing over of the complete vacant and physical possession of the subject-property. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Agreement are reproduced hereinbelow:

"1. That in pursuance of this Agreement to Sell and in consideration of a total sum of Rs.12.25.00.000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Twenty Five Thousand lacs only) out of which the FIRST PARTY has received a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) in the following manner:

Rs.76,08,000/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Eight Thousand Only) vide Cheque No. 898287 dated 16th November, 201