Dismissed¶9

Shailender Kumar Singh Alias S.K. Singh v. Bharat Bhushan Puri

Delhi HC9 Jan 2026FAO/31/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; FAO appeal; specific performance; oral agreement to sell; handwritten note not an agreement to sell; unstamped and unregistered document; no date for execution of sale deed; delay of 19 years; prima facie case; Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh AIR 1993 SC 276; injunction application dismissed; impugned order upheld; appeal dismissed; Delhi High Court; Tis Hazari Courts; New Moti Nagar; Manoj Kumar Ohri.

What did the court decide?

On a prima facie perusal, this Court found that the handwritten note relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff does not record that the amounts mentioned therein were paid towards the sale of the suit property. ¶6

Shailender Kumar Singh Alias S.K. Singh Vs Bharat Bhushan Puri — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, dismissed by the trial court on 22.11.2024, merited being set aside on appeal — i.e., whether the plaintiff had shown a prima facie case warranting interim restraint in the suit for specific performance. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

This Court observed that although the appellant claimed he had paid the entire sale consideration and the cause of action according to him arose in the year 2005, the suit was preferred after a delay of 19 years.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

¶6

Key takeaways

In light of the foregoing observations — this Court's own prima facie reading of the note and the grounds recorded in the impugned order (note not an agreement to sell: no terms regarding execution of a sale deed, no statement that the defendant agreed to transfer ownership, no date fixed for execution of the sale deed, document unstamped and unregistered) — this Court found no ground to interfere with the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's temporary-injunction application and upheld the impugned order.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J), FAO 31/2025 and CM APPL. 8051/2025, decided 09.01.2026 — Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC by Shailender Kumar Singh alias S.K. Singh praying to set aside the order dated 22.11.2024 of the District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit No.Civ.DJ/120/2024, dismissing his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance over the third floor with roof rights of House No.34/496, New Moti Nagar, premised on an alleged oral agreement and advance of sale consideration (Rs.4,00,000/- claimed, paid 2005). Invoking Dalpat Kumar and Anr. vs Prahlad Singh and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 276 on the principles governing temporary injunction, the Court noted on prima facie perusal that the sole relied-upon handwritten note does not record that the amounts mentioned therein were paid towards the sale of the suit property; the grounds recorded in the impugned order — that the note cannot be considered an agreement to sell as it records no terms regarding execution of a sale deed, does not state that the defendant agreed to transfer ownership, mentions no date for execution of the sale deed, and is unstamped and unregistered — together with the suit having been preferred after a delay of 19 years despite the cause of action arising in 2005, led the Court to find no ground to interfere. Impugned order upheld; appeal dismissed and, along with pending applications, disposed of.

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 31/2025 and CM APPL. 8051/2025

¶4

SHAILENDER KUMAR SINGH ALIAS S.K. SINGH .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Devanand Rai and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocates with appellant in person

¶6

versus

¶7

BHARAT BHUSHAN PURI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R

¶10

% 09.01.2026

¶11

The present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit No.Civ.DJ/120/2024, whereby the appellant’s application moved under Oder 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the CPC came to be dismissed.

¶12

The appellant, who is the plaintiff before the trial court, preferred a suit for specific performance claiming that the defendant had agreed to sell his third floor, along with the rights to the roof of House No.34/496, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi-ll00l5 [hereafter referred to as the “suit property”]. The understanding between the parties was oral. Pursuant thereto, the defendant advanced a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- in two installments. Out of the said amount, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid in cash. The first installment of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on 29.01.2005, against which a written note was handed over to the plaintiff and Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash on 31.01.2005/01.02.2005. Additional amount of Rs.50,0000/- was

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 19/01/2026 at 12:27:36

¶15

paid by way of a cheque, which was cleared on 25.01.2005. The appellant claimed that he had purchased stamp paper in 2005, however, the defendant did not exhibit any transfer documents.

¶16

Ultimately, a legal notice was served on 22.01.2024, pursuant to which, the suit came to be filed.

¶17

Upon being served, the respondent contested the suit by contending that although the sale consideration was paid in the year 2005, the suit has been instituted after an inordinate delay of 19 years, i.e., in the year 2025.

¶18

It is stated that the appellant’s occupation of the suit property is illegal. The respondent denied that any understanding was ever entered into between the parties. It was submitted that neither does any agreement to sell exist, nor has there been any transfer of documents. The appellant’s reliance on a handwritten note is also specifically contested on the ground that the same is forged.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the record, it is noted that the only document relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff is a hand written note. On a prima facie perusal thereof, the said note, does not record that the amounts mentioned therein were paid towards the sale of the suit property. The respondent has set up a defence that the appellant/plaintiff was permitted to reside in the suit property upon payment of compensation, and that he has since been asked to vacate the premises, as the suit property was required for the respondent’s own family needs.

¶20

The principle governing the grant of temporary injunction stand wellsettled by the Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar and Anr. vs Prahlad Singh

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 19/01/2026 at 12:27:36

¶23

and Ors.¹ .

¶24

The cause of action, according to the appellant/plaintiff, arose in the year 2005. Although he has claimed that he had paid the entire sale consideration, however, the suit has been preferred after a delay of 19 years. The trial court has noted in the impugned order that the hand written note relied upon by the appellant cannot be considered as an agreement to sell, as it does not record any terms regarding execution of a sale deed, nor does it state that the defendant agreed to transfer ownership of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. No date for execution of the sale deed is mentioned in the said hand-written note. Further, it is noted that the document is unstamped and unregistered. In the light of what has been observed hereinabove, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order, which is accordingly, upheld.

¶25

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

The appeal along with the pending applications are disposed of.

¶27

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶28

JANUARY 09, 2026 pmc

¶29

1 AIR 1993 SC 276

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 19/01/2026 at 12:27:36

Shailender Kumar Singh Alias S.K. Singh v. Bharat Bhushan Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailender Kumar Singh Alias S.K. Singh v. Bharat Bhushan Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tej Narain Sharma Vs State of Delhi

Smt Raj Rani Saini Vs Sh Sanjay Narang

Narendra Kumar Dikshit Vs Government of India Central Public Works Department & Ors.

Ashok Vs the State

Shahajahan & Anr. Vs Ghulshan Babu & Anr.

Akhil Mohan Bajaj (Deceased) through His Lrs. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.