SAT PAL ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). In this application it has been prayed that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from selling, alienating, transferring or parting with possession of the suit premises in collusion with defendants 2 and 3 to the Italian company and/or any thud party except to the plaintiff. This application was listed for hearing on 27. 7. 90 and notice on this application was issued for 9. 11. 90. Notice of the application was, however, accepted on the same date in the Court on behalf of the defendants 1,2 and 3. Meanwhile, the defendant No. 1 was restrained by this Court from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the property till further orders. Thereafter reply. was filed on behalf of the defendant No. l and the rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that defendant No. l is the owner of l/3rd share of the property bearing No. l 3, Golf Link, New Delhi which is build up house on a plot measuring 1718 sq. yards . As per averments made in para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff is alleged to have entered into an. agreement to sell with the defendant No. 1 whereby defendant No. l had agreed to sell his l/3rd share in the suit property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had paid to the defendant No. l a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 on 22. 8. 89 (Rs. l,50,000. 00 by pay order dated, 22. 8. 89, Rs. 50,000. 00 by-cheque dated. . 22. 8. 89 and Rs. 50,000. 00 in cash, on account of earnest money.- It has further been alleged that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 69. 000. 00on 3. 2. 90. and a sum of Rs. 51,000. 00 on 25. 2. 90 to defendant No. 1 as further part payment against the sale consideration.-It may be pointed out here that total amount of sale consideration was not mentioned in the plaint ( 3 ) THE defendant No. l in his written statement has, however, stated that there was no contract and/or any agreement between the pames which can be specifically enforced. 90 to defendant No. 1 as further part payment against the sale consideration.-It may be pointed out here that total amount of sale consideration was not mentioned in the plaint ( 3 ) THE defendant No. l in his written statement has, however, stated that there was no contract and/or any agreement between the pames which can be specifically enforced. It has further been stated that the transaction between the" panics was merely an agreement for entering into an agreement to sell and the "agreement to sell was to be entered into after the plaintiff had,paid a sum of Rs. 20. 00 lacs, being the 10% of total consideration of Rs. 2. 00 crores. The defendant No. 1, however, admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 2. 50 lacs which according to him included a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 received in cash on one, day prior to execution of the receipt dated 22. 8. 89. It was further stated that on 21. 8. 89 the defendant No. 1 had issued a kacha receipt which was undated, for Rs. 51,000. 00 which he had received in cash from the plaintiff on that day and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1000. 00 was spent on a party on the same day, and the remaining Rs. 50,000. 00 was included in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00. It was alleged mat the plaintiff. has fraudulently fabricated above mentioned kacha receipt of Rs. 51,000. 00 as dated 25. 2. 90 and there was no occasion to make payment on 25. 2. 90 as the disputes between the parties have already arisen on 2nd February, 1990. The amount of Rs. 69,000. 00 was also not admitted by the defendant No. 1. ( 4 ) IT may be pointed out here that after written statement had been filed on behalf "of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff has filed an application bearing No. 6865/83" under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code on 3rd August, 1993 for the amendment of the plaint. In this application it has been stated that because of inadvertant omission, the sale consideration in respect of l/3rd share of the defendant No. 1 which was subject matter of the agreement to Sell and which was Rs. 25,000. 00, has not been specifically stated in the plaint. In this application it has been stated that because of inadvertant omission, the sale consideration in respect of l/3rd share of the defendant No. 1 which was subject matter of the agreement to Sell and which was Rs. 25,000. 00, has not been specifically stated in the plaint. Accordingly, amendment of the plaint has been sought by this application. ( 5 ) MR. L. R. Gupta the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that agreement to sell for the sale of l/3rd share of the suit property was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant No. l on 22. 8. 89, the date on which defendant No. l had acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00: He further submitted that thereafter a sum of Rs. 69,000. 00 was paid on 3. 2. 90 and another sum of Rs. 51,000. 00 was paid on 25. 2. 90 towards part payment of the sale consideration. The learned counsel drew my attention to para 6 of the plaint in suit No. 3104/89 wherein the defendant No. l who was the plaintiff in that suit had admitted having executed an agreement to sell with die plaintiff. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs. 2. 00 crores alleged to be the sale consideration by the defendant No. l, was an after-thought and was a concocted. amount. In this connection he drew my attention to the receipt dated 25th February, 1990 for the sum of Rs. 51,000. 00 wherein total consideration has been mentioned as Rs. 25. 00 lacs. ( 6 ) THE teamed counsel for the plaintiff also drew my attention to the letter dated 28. 10. 91 purported to have been written by Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate on behalf the defendant No. l to the palintiff wherein it was stated that Shri J. K. Guha (defendant No. 1) had changed his earlier counsel, namely, Shri Suman Kapur, Advocate and Shri J. P. Singh, Advocate and he had been engaged by him as his counsel to represent him in the High Court. It has further been stated that defendant No. l was wiling to fulfil his part of the agreement provided the palintiff arranges the balance amount of Rs. 21,30,000. 00. Learned counsel further submitted that a photo copy of the aforesaid letter dated 28. 10. It has further been stated that defendant No. l was wiling to fulfil his part of the agreement provided the palintiff arranges the balance amount of Rs. 21,30,000. 00. Learned counsel further submitted that a photo copy of the aforesaid letter dated 28. 10. 91 was filed by the plaintiff alongwith the replication on 28. 7. 92 but the defendant No. 1 did not controvert the contents of this letter till recently when a copy of the letter dated 18. 8. 92 alleged to have been sent to Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate has filed in this case. Learned counsel further drew my attention to the vakalatnama given by the defendant No. 1 m his favour filed by Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate on 11. 11. 91 in this case. He/therefore, contended that receipt for Rs. 51000. 00 and a letter dated 28. 10. 91 sent by Mr,sunjay Lamba, Advocate clearly prove that total-sale considedration of the l/3rd share of me suit property was Rs. 25. 00 lacs. He further contended that specific performance regarding agreement to sell in respect of immoveable property was a rule. He also submitted that the question whether the receipt for Rs. 69,000. 00 and Rs. 51,000/- are forged ones cannot be gone into at this stage as the parties have. yet to lead evidence to prove their documents He,. therefore, contended that the stay granted on 27th July, 1990 should be confirmed, in support of his contention learned counsel-placed reliance on a Judgement of Supreme Court in the case Prakash Chandra vs. Anadlal, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1241 and judgement of this Court in the case of Mithlesh Gupta VS Mahipal, 1989 (3) Delhi Lawyer 27. ( 7 ) MR. R. K. Anand,, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of. defendant No. l submitted that there was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 which could be enforced. He submitted that; the plaintiff had paid a sumof Rs. 51,000. 00 on 21. 8. 89 against a kacha receipt which was undated and had executed the recept dated 22. 8. 89 for a sumof Rs. 2. 50 lacs which included a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 out of Rs. 51,000. 00 as Rs. 1,000. 00 was spent on the party arranged on 21. 8. 89.-He submitted mat on receipt of the aforesaid amount Rs. 2,50,000. 8. 89 for a sumof Rs. 2. 50 lacs which included a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 out of Rs. 51,000. 00 as Rs. 1,000. 00 was spent on the party arranged on 21. 8. 89.-He submitted mat on receipt of the aforesaid amount Rs. 2,50,000. 00 the transaction between the parties was merely; an agreement for entering into an agreement to sell which was to be-executed after the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 20. 00 lacs being the 10% total sale, consideration of Rs. 2. 00-crores. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that receipts for Rs. 69,000. 00 and Rs. 51,000. 00 were forged ones. In this connection he drew my attention to the application dated 12th February, 1990 filed by the plaintiff under order 1 Rule : 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code in. S. No. 3104/89 wherein it has been stated that. he had learnt from a reliable source that defendant -No. l was contemplating to enter into compromise with his two brothers and may mere by defeat the right, title and interest of the applicant (plaintiff in this case) in me suit property. He also drew my attention to the report dated 19. 2. 90 lodged with the police by the defendant No. l against the plaintiff. He submitted that from these two documents it was clear that the serious disputes had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant No. l on 12,2. 90 and as such the question of payment of Rs. 51,000. 00 by the plaintiff to defendant No. l on 25. 2. 90 did not arise. He also drew my attention to the receipt dated 25. 2. 90 for Rs. 51,000. 00 and submitted that the amount of Rs. 25. 00 lacs was clearly interpolated in this receipt. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel also drew my attention to the order dated 19. 2. 90 passed by the Joint Registrar in S. No. 3104/89 which clearly shows that Mr. N. S. Vashisht, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the defendant No. l in that case was discharged by defendant No. l on that very date. He further drew my attention from the directory issued by the High Court Bar Association, New Delhi which indicates that Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate is sharing chamber of Mr. N. S. Vashisht, advocate. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that having discharged-Mr. He further drew my attention from the directory issued by the High Court Bar Association, New Delhi which indicates that Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate is sharing chamber of Mr. N. S. Vashisht, advocate. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that having discharged-Mr. N. S. Vashisht, Advocate, it could not be possible that the defendant No. l had engaged Mr. Sanjay Lamba who sits in the same chamber, as his advocate and could not have authorised him to write the letter dated 28. 10. 91. He submitted that defendant No. l in fact never authorised Mr. Lamba, Advocate to act on his behalf in any suit or otherwise and this is clear from the Regd, A. D. letter dated 18. 8. 92 written by the defendant No. l to Shri Sanjay Lamba, Advocate. Learned counsel further drew my attention to the Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate on 11. 11. 91 and submitted. that from the Vakalatnama itself it is clear that the name of some other advocate has been erased and the name of Mr. Sanjay Lamba has been inserted on the erased portion of the vakalatnama. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that all these facts show that the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to any injunction from this Court ( 10 ) LEARNEDCOUNSELFURTHERSUBMITTEDTHATACOPYOFTHELETTERDATED28. 10. 91 allegedly written by Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff alongwith the replication on 28. 7. 92. , He, however, pointed out that neither there is mention of this letter in the replication nor a copy of this letter was supplied to defendant No. l alongwith the copy of the replication. He also submitted that even the index shows that annexure a i. e. copy of the letter dated 28. 10. 91 has been added in hand on the index. He, therefore, contended that in the absence of any averments in the replication with regard to this letter and having not received a copy of this letter, the defendant No. l could not have controverted the contents of this letter earlier. He submitted that as soon as the defendant No. l came to know about this. letter having been filed in mis case, he immediately filed a copy of his Regd. A. D. letter "dated 18. 8. He submitted that as soon as the defendant No. l came to know about this. letter having been filed in mis case, he immediately filed a copy of his Regd. A. D. letter "dated 18. 8. 92 written to Shri Sanjay Lamba, Adovcate wherein he had controverted the contents of the letter dated 28. 10. 91 mentioned herienabove. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant No. l further submitted that there was no contract between the parties in the eyes of law as there was no document from which intention of the parties regarding substantial terms and the conditions of the agreement could be gathered. He submitted that in the plaint neither sale. consideration of the contract was mentioned nor the date of the contract was mentioned. He, therefore, contended that in the absence of the aforesaid -substantial terms and conditions there could not be any agreement in the eyes of law. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgements. 1) State of Gujrat (Commissioner of Sales Tax, , Ahmedabad VS Variety Body Builders,, AIR 1976 SC 2108 , 2) Smt. Mayawanti VS Smt. Kaushalya Devi, JT 1990 (3) SC 205; 3) S. K. Panchaksharam Mudaliar (died) VS Kanniah Naidu, AIR 1986 Madras 156 4) Rabindra Nath Sahu VS Mrs. Maya Devi, AIR 1991 Patna l92, 5) M/s Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt Ltd VS Vinod Kumaralag, AIR 1991 Delhi, 315 6) Om Builders (p) Ltd VS Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt, 40 (1990) Delhi Law Times 39 7) M/s,saral Trading Co. VS M/s Mahesh Steel Traders, New Delhi AIR 1987 Delhi 4. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel, therefore, submitted that the application being devoid of merit be dismissed. ( 13 ) MR. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff in his rejoinder arguments submitted that in the present-case it cannot be said that the intention of the parties with regard to. date and total consideration cannot be-gathered. He submitted that though the case of the. plaintiff is that the amount of sale consideration is Rs. 25. 00 lacs but in any case it is not the case of the defendant No. l that the sale consideration was not fixed as according to defendant No. l the sale consideration is Rs. 2. 00 Crores and this matter can be gone into after the parties have led their evidence. 25. 00 lacs but in any case it is not the case of the defendant No. l that the sale consideration was not fixed as according to defendant No. l the sale consideration is Rs. 2. 00 Crores and this matter can be gone into after the parties have led their evidence. He, therefore, contended that the judgements relied on by the learned counsel for defendant No. l have got no relevance for. the decision on this application. ( 14 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly the amount of consideration for l/3rd portion of the suit property which according to the plaintiff is Rs. 25. 00 lacs, was not mentioned in the original plaint. After a lapse of more than three years, the sale consideration was sought to be introduced in para 2 of the plaint vide IA 6865/93- filed by the plaintiff on 3rd August, 1993. However, for the alleged sale consideration, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the receipt dated 25th February, 1990 for Rs. 51. 000. 00 - which reads as under :- "received a sum of Rs. 51000. 00 (fifty one thousand only) from Mr. J. K. Kashyap S/o. Late Shri H. L. Kashyap R/o 132, Munirka as part payment against 13 Golf Link l/3rd at Rs. 25. 00 lacs share. Sd/- New Delhi 25/2/90" From a bare reading of this receipt it appears that the words "at Rs. 25. 00 lacs" have been interpolated in this receipt ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has also relied on a letter dated 28. 10. 91 (copy of which was filed by the plaintiff alongwith the replication) purported to have been written by Mr. Sanjay Lamba, advocate on behalf of defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff which indicates that the total amount of consideration was Rs. 25. 00 lacs. As stated earlier, Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate at me relevant time shared the Chamber of Mr. N. S. Vashisht, Advocate with regard to whom, the power of attorney was revoked by the defendant No. 1 as is evident from the order dated 19. 2. 90 passed by the Joint Registrar in IA 1229/90 in S. No. 3104/89. Prima racie if the defendant No. 1 did not want Mr. N. S. Vashisht, Advocate with regard to whom, the power of attorney was revoked by the defendant No. 1 as is evident from the order dated 19. 2. 90 passed by the Joint Registrar in IA 1229/90 in S. No. 3104/89. Prima racie if the defendant No. 1 did not want Mr. N. S. Vashisht, Advocate to remain as his counsel, he would not have engaged an advocate who is sharing Chamber of Shri N. S. Vashisht, Advocate. "but the more disturbing factor in this case is that on. 11. 11. 91 Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate has filed a Valcalatnama signed by the - defendant No. 1 allegedly in his favour, but mis Valcalatnama clearly shows the name of some other advocate has been erased, and me name of Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocate has been inserted on the Closed portion. ( 16 ) THE facts mentioned hereinabove clearly show mat the plaintiff has not approached this Court with dean hands. It is a cardinal principle of law that a, person must come to the Court with clean hands if he seeks injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code. Since the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands as explained hereinabove, this application must fail. The view I have taken is supported by a judgement of this Court reported in me case of Anand Swarup VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 36 (1988) Delhi Law Times 304. Here i may also refer a judgement of me Supreme Court reported in me case of Udai Chand VS Shankar Lal, AIR 1978 SC 765 , In this case the special leave granted was revoked by the Supreme Court as the petitioner in me case had mispresented the facts to the Court Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 1000. 00 and the interim stay ranted in favour of the plaintiff on 27th July, 1990 stands vacated.