$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 04.02.2026 Date of decision:25.03.2026 + RFA(OS) 4/2026 & CM APPL. 4597/2026, 4599/2026 PRADEEP BATRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.Shivangi Nanda, Mr. Arsh Rampal and Mr. Srikant Singh, Advs.

versus KULDIP SINGH VERMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Mr. Vikas Ashwani, Mr. Mainak Sarkar and Ms.Aparna Kushwah, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 96, read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(“CPC”) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, against the Judgment dated 24.12.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) 871/2024, whereby the plaint instituted by the Appellant seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.2023was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out by the Appellant, are that the Appellant instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the Respondent’s communication dated 16.03.2024, purporting to terminate the oral Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.2023, is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. The Appellant further sought a decree of specific performance of the said oral Agreement in respect of the property bearing Second Floor, B-1/17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, along with 50% front terrace rights and proportionate land rights, as well as consequential injunctive relief restraining the Defendant/Respondent from creating any third-party rights in respect of the Suit Property.

3. As per the plaint, the parties allegedly entered into an oral Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.2023 for a total consideration of Rs. 12.40 crores. The Appellant claims to have paid Rs. 51 lakhs as earnest money on the same date, which was duly acknowledged by the Respondent vide Receipt dated 29.10.2023. The Respondent had disclosed that the Suit Property was tenanted and undertook to secure vacant possession by 30.11.2023, with execution of the Sale Deed by 30.12.2023 and the balance consideration was payable at the time of execution of such Sale Deed and handing over of vacant possession. However, despite issuance of notices dated 30.10.2023 and 14.12.2023, by the Respondent to the tenants, the possession thereof was not secured within the stipulated time.

4. In pursuance thereof, upon repeated assurances being given by the Respondent, the Appellant granted extensions for securing such vacant possession from his tenants lastly up to 29.02.2024, with execution of Sale Deed to follow within a month thereafter. The Appellant asserts that such extension constituted a limited novation only with respect to time. The Appellant further claimed that throughout the aforesaid period, he remained ready and willing to perform his part of the Agreement to Sell, continued to coordinate documentation through communications including a WhatsApp group created for the purpose of transaction, and never sought cancellation of such Agreement.

5. It is further the case of the Appellant that vide letter dated 16.03.2024, the Respondent terminated the Oral Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.2023 alleging delay and reluctance on the part of the Appellant and has refunded the earnest money amounting to Rs. 51 lakhs to the Appellant. The Appellant, by reply dated 08.04.2024, denied such termination, reiterated readiness and willingness, and called upon the Respondent to perform such Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.2023.

6. Subsequent thereto, apprehending creation of third-party rights, the Appellant issued public notices on 02.05.2024 and thereafter instituted the aforesaid suit seeking specific performance and injunction. Upon institution of the suit, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 29.10.2024, found that documentary proof evidencing readiness and willingness had not been placed on record.