JUDGMENT

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. — Leave granted. Heard. The validity of a novel and innovative direction by the High Court, purportedly issued to discourage frivolous and speculative litigation is under challenge in this appeal. To understand the issue, it is necessary to set out the facts and also extract relevant portions of the plaint and the impugned orders of the High Court.

2. The appellant claims to be a builder-cum-real estate dealer. He filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for “commercial collaboration for business benefits” allegedly entered by the respondents as the owners in possession of premises No.A-1/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, with him. He alleged in the plaint, that the following terms and conditions were orally agreed between the parties:

"(a) The defendants will apply to the DDA for conversion of the above property from leasehold to freehold and within 2-3 months the defendants will hand over vacant physical possession of the above property to the plaintiff.

(b) The plaintiff will reconstruct the above property from his own money/funds with three storeys i.e. ground floor, first floor and second floor.

(c) Out of the said reconstructed three st