JUDGMENT K. Ramamoorthy, J.
(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs: I)a decree for an amount of Rs.l3,50,000.00 may be passed in, favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants herein: or ii) for the possession of the IInd Floor of the suit premises bearing No. W- 104, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi, alongwith damages as the defendants have been in possession of the premises in dispute illegally, surreptitiously and without any legal authority: iii) For the interest accrued to the plaintiff at the rate of 18% per annum on the payment from the date of receipt due to the plaintiff on the principal and damages till its actual realisation.
(2) The plaintiff claimed the relief of specific performance or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs.l3,50,000.00 . I do not want to refer to the pleadings in details because the parties had indulged in prolixity of pleadings with a view to projecting their respective contentions. The defendants have joined issues with the plaintiff only on the question for the purpose of receiving the money. The receipt of Rs, 13,00,000.00 by the defendants is admitted. The reasons given by the defendants that it is for business purpose and not for the purpose of selling the property to the plaintiff. This is a matter to be considered at the time of trial of the case.
(3) Ia No-514/95 is filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff prays for the following reliefs in the IA. "ITis, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an ex-parte ad- interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, servants etc. from negotiating, selling, conveying, transferring and/or parting with the possession of suit property i.e. IInd Floor of property bearing No. W-104, situated in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi."
(4) Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties when the receipt of the money is admitted by the defendants the relief claimed by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from alienating the property pending the suit cannot be denied. The plaintiff has shown a prima facie strong case and the balance of convenience on the facts and circumstances of this case is also in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, ad interim injunction granted on 19.01.1995 is made absolute.
(5) Ia No. 9987/95 under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code is filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed this application for a direction for sealing the Audio Cassette wherein the conversation between the partner of the plaintiff and Mr. Sunil Gupta is recorded. The plaintiff cannot claim this relief at this stage and it is for him to prove the audio cassette in accordance with law at the time of trial of the case. This court is not existing for the sake of keeping the audio cassette of the plaintiff till the trial of the case. The relief prayed for is wholly unreasonable and accordingly, it is dismissed.
(6) Ia No. 9988/95 is filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC. In this application the plaintiff stated that the defendants should submit better statement or particulars according to the plaintiff, the defendants had mortgaged the property with Andhra Bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, or Cannaught Circus, New Delhi, Branch even before agreeing to sell the properly and after receiving a sum of Rs.l3,50,000.00 , Smt. Sunita Aggarwal, who is the second defendant has shown the value of the property to the income lax department at Rs. 6,48 lakhs. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendants should be directed to give better statement or particulars. I am afraid, such a relief cannot at all be prayed for. It is for the plaintiff to summon the record for the purpose of proving his case. A curious method is adopted which cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting Ia No. 9988/95 and the same is dismissed.
(7) CRI.MISC. No-4205/95 is filed by the plaintiff purporting to be under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is stated in the application that the defendants have filed eight documents as the best evidence available with them to establish their case. In para 2 of the application, it is stated that "from the very face of these documents, it is apparent that some of the documents are forged and fabricated, for which the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court is very much craved". No details were given about the documents. Nothing is mentioned about the facts as to how the plaintiff says that the documents are fabricated and forged. The application is bereft of any particulars. The plaintiff apparently has not even understood the scope of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In my view, this is clearly an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
(8) Not being satisfied with the application already pending, the plaintiff has filed Ia No. 12094/95 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking to implead Mr. Sunil Gupta as a party. The reason is that it was with the help of Mr. Sunil Gupta the defendants trespassed into the premises. It may be recalled that Ia No. 9987/95 was filed by the plaintiff for keeping the audio cassette in the custody of this court recording the conversation between the partner of the plaintiff and Mr. Sunil Gupta, in the application is not mentioned as to how, he is either a necessary or proper party. In the application it is also not stated that the plaintiff is claiming any relief against Shri Sunil Gupta. I do not find any substance in the application and accordingly, Ia No. 12094/95 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Ia No. 514/95 filed by the plaintiff under Order Xxxix Rules I and 2 is allowed. Ia No. 9987/95 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. Ia No. 9988/95 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. 4205/95 filed by the plaintiff under Section 340 Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. Ia No. 12094/95 filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 Cpc is dismissed. Post the matter for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on 10.09.1996.