$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 159/2023, CM APPL. 34311/2023 SMT.PUSHPA YADAV .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik and Mr.

Aditya Kaushik, Advocates.

versus M/S TIRUPATI LANDCON PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026

1. By way of present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned ADJ, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.57/2023 titled “M/s Tirupati Landcom Pvt. Ltd. v. Pushpa Yadav’ wherein the plaintiff’s (respondent herein) application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim stay was allowed and the appellant/defendant was restrained from creating any third party rights and interest in the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant contends that the plaintiff’s reliance on the Agreement to Sell/Bayana receipt is misplaced as a perusal of the same would show that the said document is forged and fabricated, with the name and thumb impression of the appellant appearing above the description of the property. It is further submitted that out of the earnest money of Rs. 3.50 lacs, a sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs were paid in cash.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the parties had agreed to sell the subject suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 47 lacs, out of which Rs. 3.50 lacs were paid towards earnest money, with Rs. 1 lac paid vide cheque bearing No. 219547 and Rs. 2.50 lacs paid in cash. The Bayana receipt/Agreement to Sell records the said transaction. He further submits that the agreement was duly witnessed and that the signatures of the defendant appear on both the first and second pages.

4. Notably, the underlying suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the aforesaid Agreement. The learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, noted that the thumb impression as well as the signatures of the defendant appear at two different places on each page of the Agreement. It further records that in the written statement, there is no assertion that the thumb impression does not belong to the defendant/appellant.

5. Insofar as the aspect of fraud is concerned, the Trial Court observed that the same is a triable issue. This Court, agreeing with the said observation, further notes that the time stipulated for completion of the sale under the Agreement to Sell was upto 10.12.2022. The plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit on 09.01.2023, which was preceded by issuance of a legal notice dated 17.11.2022. The plaintiff/respondent has further averred that it was ready and willing to perform its part of the Agreement to Sell at all times. In this regard, it is also stated that the plaint was accompanied by a bank statement indicating that sufficient funds were available in the plaintiff’s account. This Court finds that the said averments are supported by the requisite bank records.

6. Taking further note of the fact that the Trial Court had duly recorded the conduct of the defendant/appellant in applying to the ADM Office for seeking an NOC to create third-party interest in the suit property, this Court finds that notice of the same was received by the plaintiff in December

2022, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court concurs with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, along with the pending application.

9. It is made clear that nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the same would not affect the trial in any manner.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 18, 2026/rd