$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010391302024 + FAO 212/2024, CM APPL. 37886/2024 and CM APPL. 53944/2024 DINESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Ms.Neha Kapoor and Mr.Kaushal Mehta, Advocates versus MAMTA GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Manish Kaushik, Mr.Mishal and Mr.Chirag Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. The present appeal, filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, is directed against the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts in a nutshell are that the plaintiff has preferred a suit for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction against the present defendants in the context of an agreement to sell dated 10.10.2015, entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Vide the agreement to sell, the plaintiff claims to have agreed to purchase 5% undivided share of defendant No.1 in the property bearing No. A-1/29-B, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The sale consideration set up in the agreement to sell was 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 30/09/2026 at 12:09:18 Rs.29,11,000/-, out of which the plaintiff claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. Out of the sale consideration amount paid, a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- is stated to have been paid in cash and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- through RTGS on 27.05.2016. The balance amount of Rs.3,11,000/- was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed and handing over of possession. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the major amount of the sale consideration already stands paid to defendant No.1. It is further stated that, during the pendency of the suit, after the aforesaid agreement to sell, defendant No.1 entered into a further transaction in respect of her 5% share in the property with defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the brothers of the plaintiff. The said share was transferred by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 26.12.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, has defended the impugned order by contending that the execution of the agreement to sell as well as receipt of the cash amount, as claimed, stands denied by defendant No.1. He further submits that insofar as the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- is concerned, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being related to each other, there were other monetary transactions between them. He further submits that, as on the date of the agreement to sell, the share in the property was undivided, and the suit for partition filed by defendant No.1 had subsequently been withdrawn. 5. Indisputably, the suit has been premised with respect to the 5% undivided share of defendant No.1 in the suit property. The share being undivided, the parties have taken rival stands with respect to the execution 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 30/09/2026 at 12:09:18 of the agreement to sell, receipt of the cash amount, etc. This Court is of the considered view that, for seeking relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiff has to satisfy the three-fold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The plaintiff has claimed that he is ready and willing to perform his remaining obligations under the agreement to sell and keeping in view the fact that, post execution of the alleged agreement to sell, the share has already been transferred to defendant Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiff, prima facie, has been able to meet the trinity test the parties. Accordingly it is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo to the title an possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of alongwith the pending applications. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 na 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 30/09/2026 at 12:09:18