$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010170932022 + FAO 111/2022 & CM APPL. 21347/2022 SMT CHARANJEET KAUR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Mr. Saurabh Mathur and Mr. Devesh Sharma, Advocates versus SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KOHLI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. The present appeal, filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 Read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emanates from the order dated 29.01.2022 passed by the Trial Court in proceedings pending before it, whereby the application preferred by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and the appellant/defendant No.1 and respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was restrained from selling, transferring, creating any third-party interest, making any damage, addition, alteration or structural changes, conveying or parting with possession of the suit property. 2. While respondent No.1 had initially put in appearance, none has been appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 for the last two dates. Notices issued to respondent No.2 through ordinary process as well as speed post have also remained unserved. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for 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 12:09:55 the appellant, submits that respondent No.2 had been proceeded ex- parte even before the Trial Court. 3. This Court has accordingly proceeded to hear the submissions. The parties shall hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, be referred to by their original status before the Trial Court. 4. The genesis of the suit lies in the collaboration agreement executed between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 on 19.09.2016 in respect of the suit property. Under the said agreement, defendant No.1 was the owner of the property bearing Plot No. 148 ad-measuring 55 sq. yards, Khasra No. 534, situated in revenue estate of Village Tihar, Delhi, Estate Delhi, Area abadi known as colony Fateh Nagar Extension, New Delhi with the municipal No. WZ-678-A, Near Dashmesh Hospital, Jail Road, Shiv Nagar Extension, New Delhi- 110058 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and defendant No.2 had undertaken to construct the property up to the third floor at his own cost. In consideration thereof, defendant No.1 was required to execute/register the requisite documents in respect of the first floor, admeasuring 55 sq. yds., along with the common two-wheeler parking with proportionate rights, common staircase, entrance, passage and other common rights contemplated under the agreement, in favour of defendant No.2 or his nominee. 5. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that defendant No.2 entered into an Agreement of Sale and Purchase (bayana) with him on 27.09.2016 for a total consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-, which amount, according to the plaintiff, was paid by him to defendant No.2 and was utilised towards construction of the property. The plaintiff 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 12:09:55 further claimed that defendant No.2 completed the construction by the second week of May, 2017 and, being the nominee of defendant No.2 under the collaboration agreement, he was entitled to execution of the requisite documents in respect of the first floor. The plaintiff accordingly instituted the suit seeking specific performance, possession and other consequential reliefs. 6. The Defendant No.1, on the other hand, pleaded that defendant No.2 had failed to commence the construction contemplated under the collaboration agreement and that defendant No.1 was consequently compelled to undertake the construction herself through her son. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not a party to the collaboration agreement and had no independent agreement with defendant No.1. Defendant No.2, however, supported the case of the plaintiff and, as noticed by the Trial Court, admitted that the plaintiff was his nominee and that the funds received from the plaintiff were utilised by him towards construction of the property. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and material placed before it, found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and also held that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury operated in his favour. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was consequently allowed and the defendants were restrained from selling, transferring, creating any third-party interest, making any damage, addition, alteration or structural changes, conveying or parting with possession of the suit property. 8. It is trite law that the grant of an interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC requires consideration of the three 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 12:09:55 well-settled requirements, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is refused. These requirements have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in “Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.”1. 9. In the present case, the plaintiff has relied upon the Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated 27.09.2016 executed with defendant No.2 and claims to have paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. Defendant No.2 has supported the plaintiff’s case. The relief has to correspond to the right which the plaintiff seeks to protect. The collaboration agreement dated 19.09.2016, relied upon by the plaintiff, specifically contemplates execution of documents in respect of the first floor admeasuring 55 sq. yds., along with the common and appurtenant rights specified therein, in favour of defendant No.2 or his nominee. 10. Thus, at best, even taking the plaintiff’s case at its highest for the purposes of the present appeal, the contractual right asserted by him is with respect to the first floor and the rights attached thereto. The fact that defendant No.2 supports the plaintiff’s case or that the plaintiff claims to have paid the entire consideration may be relevant for adjudication of the suit, but cannot by itself enlarge the extent of the property in respect of which interim protection is sought. 11. The same aspect assumes significance while considering the aspect of balance of convenience. The plaintiff’s asserted interest can be protected by maintaining appropriate restraint in respect of the portion of the property to which his claim relates. On the other hand, 1 (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 30/09/2026 at 12:09:55 continuation of a blanket restraint over the entire property would restrict defendant No.1 even in respect of portions of the property against which no prima facie right has been demonstrated by the plaintiff. 12. Likewise, the apprehended injury pleaded by the plaintiff can be addressed by preserving the subject matter of the right asserted by him during pendency of the suit. An interim injunction, being an interlocutory measure, is intended to protect the claimed right pending adjudication and cannot operate beyond the subject matter of that right. 13. The Trial Court, while finding the three requirements for grant of interim protection in favour of the plaintiff, has, however, extended the restraint to the entire suit property. In doing so, the extent of the restraint does not correspond with the extent of the contractual right asserted by the plaintiff under the documents relied upon by him. 14. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the interim protection ought not to be vacated altogether, but requires to be confined to the portion of the property in respect of which the plaintiff has asserted a prima facie contractual right. 15. Accordingly, the restraint shall operate only in respect of the first floor of the suit property together with the common and appurtenant rights and facilities specifically contemplated under the collaboration agreement dated 19.09.2016. 16. The present appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 sn 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 12:09:55