Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Sukhwant Properties Pvt Ltd, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 15th October 2010, by which the 1st defendant, Deserve Builders, agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party rights in the property. The 1st defendant opposed the motion, contending that the agreement was not registered and that the plaintiff had not performed its obligations. The 2nd and 3rd defendants claimed rights under subsequent agreements. The court heard arguments from all parties. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief. The agreement was unregistered, and the plaintiff's conduct showed delay and lack of diligence. The balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff, as the defendants had already entered into transactions with third parties. The court dismissed the notice of motion, refusing to grant any interim injunction.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the property. Held that the plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and likelihood of irreparable loss. The court found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case due to the unregistered nature of the agreement and the plaintiff's conduct. (Paras 1-18) B) Contract Law - Agreement for Sale - Registration - The agreement for sale relied upon by the plaintiff was not registered. The court noted that an unregistered agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property and is not sufficient to restrain the owner from dealing with the property. (Paras 10-15) C) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Delay and Laches - The plaintiff's conduct in approaching the court after a significant delay and after the defendant had already entered into agreements with third parties weighed against the grant of interim relief. The court held that delay and laches are relevant factors in considering interim injunctions. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- agreement for sale
- unregistered agreement
- delay and laches
- conduct of parties
