$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 208/2026 MANISH ABROL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Parul Verma and Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocates versus C.D CHAWLA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Amulya Dhingra, Mr. Diwakar Singh, Ms. Anshika, Mr. Abar, and Mr. Rajat, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 20.07.2026 CAV 320/2026 1. Since the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 have entered appearance, the present caveat is discharged. CM APPL. 44936/2026 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The present application is disposed of in the above terms. FAO 208/2026 and CM APPL. 44937/2026 (stay) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, in Civ DJ No. 8296/2016. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court disposed of the appellant/plaintiff’s applications: (i) under Section 151 CPC seeking early This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20 hearing and urgent adjudication of the pending application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, as well as immediate intervention against the alleged change in the nature of the suit property and creation of third-party rights therein; (ii) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint; and (iii) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from creating third-party interests therein. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant instituted the underlying suit seeking specific performance of an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 19.03.2010 executed by Late Sh. Gobind Lal Chawla in respect of property bearing No. 7/89, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, comprising the first, second and third floor with terrace rights (hereinafter the “suit property”), along with cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5, declaration, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. According to the appellant, the total sale consideration under the Agreement to Sell was Rs.25,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by him, and possession of the suit property was consequently delivered to him. On the other hand, the respondents dispute the very execution of the Agreement to Sell and contend that the same is forged and fabricated. They further deny the payment/receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- towards earnest money, as alleged. 3. The record reveals that separate proceedings filed concerning possession of the suit property were decreed in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5, pursuant to which possession of the suit property was delivered to them in execution proceedings. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of both sides have informed the Court that Regular First Appeals (RFAs) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20 assailing the said decrees are presently pending before this Court. It is, however, not disputed that no orders staying the operation of the said decrees have been passed. 4. Under apprehension that the respondents may demolish and redevelop the suit property and create third-party rights therein, the appellant moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking early hearing and urgent intervention by the Trial Court, in addition to the already pending applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim relief against dispossession and creation of third-party rights in the suit property. 5. By way of the impugned order, the Trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 151 CPC by directing expeditious adjudication of the other pending applications. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 having expressed no objection thereto, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was also allowed. While deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Trial Court inter alia observed that the appellant was no longer in possession of the suit property, that the rival claims arising out of the Agreement to Sell dated 19.03.2010 raised disputed questions requiring evidence and trial, and consequently declined the appellant’s prayer for interim injunction. The Trial Court further observed that any redevelopment or transfer of the suit property during the pendency of the suit would remain subject to the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order insofar as it failed to appreciate the urgency created by the proposed demolition and redevelopment of the suit property and erroneously declined to grant interim This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20 protection to the appellant. It is further contended that the application under Section 151 CPC was effectively treated as an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, without independently considering the extraordinary circumstances warranting exercise of the Court’s inherent powers. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that the appellant was merely a tenant who is admittedly no longer in possession of the suit property, and that the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 19.03.2010 is forged and fabricated. He points out that the answering respondents produced a handwriting examination report before the Trial Court disputing the veracity of the alleged Agreement to Sell relied upon by the appellant and further points out that criminal proceedings have been initiated in relation to the same. It is further submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are presently in possession of the suit property pursuant to Court decrees, which continue to operate, since no stay has been granted in the concerned RFAs. It is also submitted that the decrees of possession in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were passed in the year 2024 and possession of the suit property had already been delivered to them in execution proceedings much prior to the appellant filing the application under Section 151 CPC in the year 2026. It is thus submitted that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. The principles governing grant of a temporary injunction are well settled. The applicant must satisfy the triple test: (i) a prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable loss (Ref: Gujarat Bottling Co. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20 Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co.1). 10. The appellant’s principal grievance is that the Trial Court failed to independently consider the need for urgent intervention explained in his application under Section 151 CPC and instead treated the same as an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the application under Section 151 CPC was separately considered and partly allowed by directing expeditious adjudication of the pending applications, and it is only thereafter that the appellant’s prayer for interim injunction came to be independently considered on its own merits while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. 11. While considering the appellant’s prayer for interim injunction, the Trial Court noted that the appellant was no longer in possession of the suit property; that the respondents dispute the very execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 19.03.2010, claiming it to be forged and fabricated; and that the rival claims of the parties give rise to disputed questions requiring evidence and trial. The Trial Court also took note of the handwriting examination report relied upon by the respondents in respect of the concerned Agreement, as well as the pendency of criminal proceedings in respect of the same. 12. Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 19.03.2010 was in fact executed by Late Sh. Gobind Lal Chawla, whether the appellant acquired any enforceable right thereunder, and whether the subsequent sale deeds are liable to be set aside are all questions which necessarily require evidence and trial. At the stage of deciding an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 11 (1995) 5 SCC 545 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20 CPC, the Court is not required to conclusively determine the genuineness of the concerned Agreement to Sell or the ultimate rights of the parties flowing therefrom. 13. The Agreement to Sell is admittedly unregistered. Further, the alleged payment of Rs.5,00,000/- is stated to have been made entirely in cash, without any contemporaneous receipt, banking transaction, or other documentary material on record. Though none of these circumstances are determinative at this stage, they reinforce the Trial Court’s conclusion that there exist serious triable issues which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the interlocutory stage. 14. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is a detailed order dealing with the appellant’s applications under Section 151, Order 6 Rule 17, and Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. On a holistic reading of the same, this Court finds no infirmity therein, especially to the end that the Trial Court did not adequately consider the different reliefs sought by the appellant vide the concerned applications. 15. While the prayer under the Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC application insofar as seeking protection against dispossession had become infructuous in view of possession having already been delivered to respondent nos. 4 and 5 pursuant to execution of decrees passed in separate proceedings, the Trial Court nevertheless adequately considered the appellant’s prayer seeking restraint against demolition, redevelopment, and creation of third- party rights in the suit property, before declining the same. Further, while declining the prayer for injunction, the Trial Court specifically noted that any alienation, transfer or redevelopment of the suit property would remain subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and the final outcome of the suit, and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20 that no equity could be claimed on the basis of any development undertaken during the pendency of the litigation. The contention that the Trial Court did not consider the prayers in the application under Section 151 CPC in their entirety is also misplaced, as a holistic reading of the impugned order would show that the Trial Court considered prayer (a) thereof in the initial part of the order, while the remaining prayers were considered along with the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case warranting grant of interim relief. The balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of granting the relief sought, particularly when respondent nos. 4 and 5, claiming ownership over the suit property under registered sale deeds, continue to remain in possession pursuant to Court decrees. The appellant has also failed to demonstrate any irreparable injury warranting interference with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court, particularly in view of the protection available under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed. 18. Needless to add, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as a comment on the merits of the case, and the Trial Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by the same. 19. The present appeal, along with the pending application, is disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 20, 2026/nb This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:28:20