SAT PAL ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this application, inter alia, it has been prayed that the defendants, its servants/employees/officers/agents or anyone acting on their behalf may be restrained from executing the Flat Buyers Agreement in respect of office space/flat measuring 1000 sq. ft. allotted to the plaintiff on 5th Floor of Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhmaba Road, New Delhi. Notice of this application was issued to the defendants on 3rd March, 1993 and on the same date the defendants were restrained from allotting, selling, transferring or handing over the possession of office space measuring 1000 sq. ft. on 5th floor in Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi to anyone other than the plaintiff. A reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the defendants and the plaintiff has also filed the rejoinder. The arguments were heard in part on 18th January, 1994 and on that date I directed the learned counsel for the defendant to file an affidavit with regard to the stage of the completion of the building. Pursuant to this order, an affidavit dated 20th January, 1994 has been filed on behalf of the defendants. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had submitted an application form to the defendants for provisional booking of flat/showroom in the proposed multi-storyed building, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on 14th December, 1988 and in her application she had mentioned the area required approximately as 1,000 sq. ft. The said application form was submitted through Shri Surender Arora, who is an agent for the purchase and sale of the properties. The application form itself contained the schedule of payment and as per the said schedule 20% of the amount was required to be paid at the time of booking, 10% by 31st March, 1989, 10% by 30th June, 1989 and 10% on commencement of excavation of basement. Further payments have also been mentioned in this schedule but those payments are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this application. After submission of the application, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of cheque on 15th December, 1988 and a further sum of Rs. 1,75,000. Further payments have also been mentioned in this schedule but those payments are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this application. After submission of the application, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of cheque on 15th December, 1988 and a further sum of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 on 16th January, 1989. ( 3 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties that the rate at which the flat space was booked was 2250 per sq. ft. Thus the total cost of 1000 sq. ft. comes to Rs. 22,50,000. 00 and the cost of 500 sq. ft. comes to Rs. 11,25,000. 00. From the documents filed by the plaintiff herself, I find that the defendants by their letter dated 20th March, 1989 had informed the plaintiff that the approximate area booked by her was 500 sq. ft. and for that booking she had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000. 00. By this letter, the defendant had demanded another sum of Rs. 1,25,500. 00 by 31st March, 1989 being the 30% of the value in terms of the schedule of payment mentioned in the application form. ( 4 ) MR. Nayyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff drew my attention to two letters dated 17th February and 28th February, 1992 addressed by Shri Surender Arora, the agent, to the plaintiff and submitted that these letters clearly show that the area booked by the plaintiff was 1000 sq. ft. and not 500 sq. ft. as alleged by the defendants. He further submitted that after making the initial payment of Rs. 2,25,000. 00, the plaintiff did not make any further payment as for the first time she was informed 0. 1 February, 1992 that the escavation of basement had commenced. He, therefore, contended that the interim stay granted on 28th August, 1992 be confirmed. ( 5 ) MR. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, however, drew my attention to the letter dated 16th January, 1989 copy of which-has been annexed with the written statement as annexure A. Along with this letter, Mr. Surender Arora, the agent, had annexed a cheque dated 14th January, 1989 issued by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 for booking of approximate 500 sq. ft. area in the said building. Surender Arora, the agent, had annexed a cheque dated 14th January, 1989 issued by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 for booking of approximate 500 sq. ft. area in the said building. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the plaintiff had paid only a sum of Rs. 2,25,000. 00 which was the 20% value of the flat measuring 500 sq. ft. and not of 1000 sq. ft. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the records, I find that in terms of the schedule o payment the plaintiff was required to pay 20% of the cost of the flat at the time of booking. In case the booking is for 500 sq. ft. , the amount comes to Rs. ll,25,000. 00. and admittedly the plaintiff so far has paid only a sum of Rs. 2,25,000. 00 which comes to 20% to the total cost of the flat measuring500 sq. ft. I further find that the defendants in their letter dated 20th March, 1989 had informed the plaintiff that the area booked by the plaintiff was 500 sq. ft. for which the defendants had received only a sum of Rs. 2,25,000. 00 being the 20% of the value which was required to be paid at the time of booking. The plaintiff did not send any reply to this letter. I am, therefore, of the view that the order dated 28th August, 1992 has to be modified to the extent as the office space booked by the plaintiff appears to be 500 sq. ft. and not 1000 sq. ft. Accordingly, the order dated 28th August, 1992 is modified and the respondents are restrained from allotting, selling, transferring or handing over the possession of office space measuring 500 sq. ft. on 5th Floor in Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. This order is subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall deposit further amount according to the schedule of payment within four weeks from today; This order is, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties urged in the plaint as well as in the written statement. With this order: the application stands disposed of. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.