An application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC should be granted when the applicant establishes a prima facie case through substantial evidence of payment, demonstrating a balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable loss if the status quo is not maintained.

O R D E R

07.01.2026

CM.APPL. 60970/2024 (Exemption from filing typed/original documents)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 333/2024 and CM APPL. 60969/2024

1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-04, South District, Saket Courts in CS No. 718/2023 titled “Laxmi Vs. Anita Tyagi & Ors.”, whereby the appellant/plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Civil Suit against the respondents/defendants seeking specific performance, possession, and permanent injunction relating to an Agreement to Sell for property bearing Khasra No. 420/2, admeasuring 100 sq. yards, situated at Chhatarpur. The agreement was purportedly executed between the appellant and the late owner, Sh. Sushil Tyagi (husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent no. 2), for a total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant remitted a substantial sum of about Rs.10,00,000/- as earnest money, which includes Rs.5,88,000/- through IMPS and Rs.4,11,500/- as cash payment, whereafter the Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.2019 was entered into. He states that the same stands proved in view of the cash payment receipts and the appellant’s bank statement, which are duly annexed with the plaint, and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s application seeking ad-interim injunction against the respondents creating third party interest in the suit properly due to an overemphasis on minor discrepancies within the Agreement to Sell.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the purported Agreement to Sell appears to be a false document prima facie and its contents are self-contradictory. There is no mention in the said agreement regarding balance payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and the payment column has been left blank, as noted by the Trial Court.

5. A perusal of the record indicates that the core dispute lies in the validity of the Agreement to Sell and whether payment was actually tendered. The appellant claims that an Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.2019 was executed for Rs.20,00,000/- consideration, and that she paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Cash + IMPS), providing bank statements and receipts as evidence, and seeks a status quo order to prevent creation of third-party interest in the suit property. The respondents, in contrast, submit that the Agreement to Sell appears false and is self-contradictory, they deny having received Rs.10,00,000/-, point out the payment column in the agreement is blank, and argue that an injunction would unnecessarily entangle the property in litigation.

6. In an application seeking the grant of a temporary injunction, the applicants are required to satisfy the Court qua the triple test, the conditions of which are: i) a prima facie case; ii) the likelihood of suffering of irreparable loss in case injunction is not granted; and iii) the balance of convenience favouring the applicant(s) (Ref: Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co. ¹(1995) 5 SCC 545)

7. As noted above, on one hand, the appellant has placed on record evidence regarding transfer of a substantial amount of money, along with a dated agreement. On the other hand, the respondents have made general denials that the documents are forged. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application summarily without fully appreciating the documentary evidence o