JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 8146/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff) & I.A. 1468/2023 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff), I.A. 7439/2022 (O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC on behalf of the defendant no.5), I.A. 10596/2022 (O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC on behalf of the defendant no.6), I.A. 11708/2022 (O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC on behalf of the defendants no.2, 3 and 4)

BRIEF FACTS

1. The present suit was originally filed as a suit for perpetual injunction before the Court of Additional District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts on 3rd July, 2014 by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1, Holystar Natural Resources Private Limited.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell dated 11th July, 2011 for sale of semi-furnished first floor measuring about 18 ft. X 68 ft. and second floor with terrace/roof above, measuring 18 ft. X 68 ft. forming part of freehold property bearing municipal no.10463 and 10466 built on plot no.42 and 43 situated in Western Extension Area, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The total sale consideration was Rs.10,50,00,000/-, out of which plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- to the defendant no.1, as noted in Clause 1 of the agreement to sell.

3. Yet another agreement to sell dated 20th February, 2013 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for sale of one shop on ground floor ad measuring 9 ft. X 37-6 ft. along with basement forming part of freehold property bearing municipal No.10466 built on plot no.43, Western Extension Area, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The total sale consideration was Rs.5,00,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff had paid Rs.3,97,00,000/- to the defendant, as noted in Clause 1 of the agreement to sell. As per the said agreement to sell dated 20th February, 2013, the defendant no.1 had to clear the amount payable to one M/s Rare Finance Pvt. Ltd. on or before 15th May, 2013 and Sale Deed could be executed only thereafter.

4. The portions of the properties covered under both the agreements to sell shall be collectively referred to as „suit properties‟.

5. Under the clause 8 of the agreement to sell dated 11th July, 2011 and clause 6 of the agreement to sell dated 20th February, 2013, the defendant no.1 had to complete the construction before registration of the sale deeds. Along with agreements to sell, possession letters were also issued stating that physical possession has been delivered to the plaintiff.

6. On 26th June, 2014, an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant no.1 not to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties without adopting the process of law, till further orders.

7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 before the District Court on 30th July, 2014, it was stated that the defendant no.1 took a loan of Rs.2,65,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in respect of the said loan, the plaintiff got some blank papers and cheques signed from the defendant no.1 as a measure of security. It was specifically denied that any agreement to sell was executed between the parties. It was further stated that the two agreements to sell dated 11th July, 2011 and 20th February, 2013, the receipts and the possession letters are forged and fabricated. The suit properties were sealed on 2nd May, 2013 on account of violation of the Delhi Master Plan 2021. The defendant no.1 continued to be the lawful owner of the suit properties and never gave the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff.

8. Subsequently on 19th November, 2015, the present suit was transferred to this Court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction.

9. A public notice dated 6th September, 2014 issued by HDFC Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for taking symbolic possession of the suit properties on account of defendant no.1 defaulting in repayment of loan of Rs.11,28,47,780/- taken from HDFC Bank, for which the Plot no.43, Bloc