C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 Date of Decision: December 2, 2009 RAP Media Limited, a Public Ltd. Company, Mumbai …..Petitioner Vs. Sh.Dhanraj Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. A.M. Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioners have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dated September 22, 2007 passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, reversing the order dated April 30, 2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 [2] The facts relevant for the adjudication of the revision petition are that the plaintiff- petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale which had come into existence on the basis of the proposal of the defendant- respondents and acceptance of plaintiff- petitioner, on the basis of a meeting held amongst the defendant- respondents and plaintiff- petitioner in July 2005, meeting dated August 3, 2005, letter dated August 5, 2005 and letter dated September 23, 2005. The plaintiff- petitioner claims that earnest money of a sum of Rs.1.50 crores besides another sum of Rs.1 crore has been paid out of total sale consideration of Rs.25 crores, regarding 17 kanals 11 marlas of land in dispute mentioned in heading of the plaint. It is claimed by the plaintiff- petitioner that a total earnest money of Rs.3.50 crores has already been paid to the defendant- respondents. The defendant-respondents are contesting the suit that they had never entered into an agreement of sale regarding the suit property with the plaintiff and that they had not received any consideration as advance towards the sale price of the suit property. Receipt of sum of Rs.2.50 crores has been admitted. But it is claimed that it was not connected with any agreement of sale. The plaintiff- appellants had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant- respondents from alienating or selling the property mentioned in heading of the plaint situated on Circular Road, Amritsar, in favour of any other person except the plaintiff or changing nature of the suit property by raising construction during the pendency of the suit. The said application was allowed by Civil C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 [3] Judge observing that in view of a huge amount of Rs.2.50 crores having been admitted to have been received by the defendant- respondents, the suit property deserves to be protected to avoid multiplicity of litigations, finding prima facie a good case for interim injunction, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and chances of plaintiff suffering an irreparable loss in case the defendants are not restrained from alienating or raising construction, transferring the suit property and also raising construction over the suit property, in any manner till the decision of the main case. The lower Appellate Court observed that there is a dispute regarding payment of Rs.1 crore having been paid out of the claimed amount of Rs.3.50 crores as earnest money which was not reflected in the balance-sheet. It was not justified to help a person who is paid unaccounted money to evade tax. So far as the agreement of sale is concerned, the lower Appellate Court observed that there had not been any concluded contract between the parties to sell the immoveable property. The deal was only at negotiation stage and that the amount of Rs.2.5 crores which was received by the defendants was either received as a loan or paid to them just to push the negotiation which never matured into a concluded sale agreement. The interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner was thus dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Mr.A.M. Punchhi, learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner contended that on November 2, 2006, the petitioner had addressed a letter to respondents No.1 to 3 requesting them to send the copies of the original title deeds and in this letter the factum of Rs.3.50 crores having already been C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 [4] paid was recorded. But in an undated letter received by the petitioner in the month of December 2006, it was stated by the respondent that there had never been any discussion with respect to the sale of the suit property and that the money advance was towards loan for business purposes. Copies of the letters dated November 27, 2006 and reply of the respondents has been placed on record. The receipt of money to the extent of Rs.2.50 crores is admitted by the defendant- respondents. There appears to be a controversy regarding the receipt of sum of Rs.1 crore which is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff- petitioner to the defendant- respondents. The oral agreement of sale on the basis of proposal and conduct of the parties is not an unknown legal phenomenon. The Apex Court in Brij Mohan and others Vs. Sugra Begum and others, (1990) 4 SCC 147 has held that there is no requirement of law that an agreement or contract of sale of immoveable property should only be in writing. It was observed that when plaintiff comes forward to seek decree of specific performance of contract of sale of immoveable property on the basis of an oral agreement alone, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there was consensus ad idem between the parties for a concluded oral contract for sale of immoveable property. Whether there was a concluded oral contract or not would always be a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It would not be appropriate at this stage to express any opinion regarding the positive and negative aspects of oral agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into between the parties by the different transactions of conduct of the parties C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 [5] lest it should prejudice the merits of the case. But it is sufficient to observe here that the plaintiff- petitioner is a Company having its registered office at Mumbai whereas the defendant- respondents are owners of the property in dispute residing at Amritsar. It is yet to be determined whether the passing of alleged earnest money was merely a loan transaction or it was a step in the process of transaction of agreement of sale/ sale. The correspondence between the parties seems to be in context to the sale of commercial land situated at Circular Road. In case the property in dispute is transferred during the pendency of the case and ultimately it transpires that there had been an agreement between the parties pertaining to the property in dispute, the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation. I have also considered the principle of lis pendense. Striking a balance between the rights of both the parties, it is deemed appropriate to modify the orders passed by the Courts below to the effect that in case the defendant- respondents need not to sell the property in dispute, they would supply the details of the proposed vendee (s) to the trial Court so that the plaintiff- petitioner may implead the proposed vendee(s) as party(s) in the case. An interim injunction is ordered that the property in dispute will not be sold without intimation of the details of the sale to the trial Court. With the above direction, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court and modifying the order passed by the trial Court. December 2, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE C.R. No. 5195 of 2007 [6]