JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—This order shall dispose of an application (OMP No. 148/98) filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 5th May, 1995 and has further sought a decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction. It is said that in case the stay is not granted, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. The defendant is thus sought to be restrained from raising any construction on the site in question and further from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering or charging the same during the pendency of the present suit. 3. In reply filed to this application, the defendant states that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and correct facts have not been placed before the Court. It is said that the defendant has already started raising construction on the site and has spent Rs. 4,50,000/- on it. The agreement stands admitted. An amount of Rs. 10 lacs is further admitted to have been received as earnest money. It is sought to be urged from the side of the defendant that as per clause (b) of the agreement, a further amount of Rs. 10 lacs was to be paid within fifteen days of the revalidation of the approved plans. It is said that the plans were duly got revalidated under intimation to the plaintiff. There was absolutely no response from his side and the husband of the defendant then sent a letter on December 8,1995 asking the plaintiff to make clear his stand. It is said that the husband of the defendant was acting on her behalf The letter, postal receipt and acknowledgement have been placed on record along with the reply. 4. The husband of the defendant is said to have died in the year 1996. The defendant although repudiated the contract yet in order to maintain neighbourly relations, was prepared to refund Rs. 10 lacs to the plaintiff by way of instalments. A notice is said to have been sent to the plaintiff which was replied by way of telegram. 5. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was to pay the balance money which was not paid by him and for that reason the agreement had to be cancelled. 10 lacs to the plaintiff by way of instalments. A notice is said to have been sent to the plaintiff which was replied by way of telegram. 5. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was to pay the balance money which was not paid by him and for that reason the agreement had to be cancelled. As per the defendant, the construction has been started in October 1997 and an agreement has been entered into between her and the contractor. Photo copy of this agreement has also been placed on record. It is said that the plaintiff who is admittedly residing in the adjoining building, having fully come to know of the raising of the construction, raised no protest and the first slab has already been placed and pillars have been raised for the purposes of putting further slabs, it is further sought to be urged that the cost of construction is increasing every day and in case the defendant is restrained from carrying out further construction, it would cause her great injury, harm and mental torture whereas the plaintiff shall not suffer in case the stay is rejected. 6. Mr R.L. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, has drawn my attention to the various clauses contained in the agreement and it is sought to be urged that the agreement is still subsisting as there is no forfeiture clause contained in it, The letter sent by the defendant is denied. Reliance is being placed on the telegram which is sent in reply to the notice whereby the plaintiff told the defendant in dear terms that the agreement subsisted and could not be cancelled. It is being argued further by Mr. Sood that the plaintiff has already washed his hands from a huge amount of Rs. 10 lacs way back in the year 1995 and the defendant cannot be permitted to swallow this amount and also cannot be permitted to go ahead with the construction which is being raised on the site. It is further being urged from the side of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that ha never resiled from it. 7. It is further being urged from the side of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that ha never resiled from it. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the plaint, the application for stay, reply and other material placed by the parties on record, I find that there was no correspondence between them from December 8, 1995 till October 20,1997. It further transpires that the defendant had obtained the requisite permission from the concerned authorities for raising the construction but the question as to whether the plaintiff was actually intimated about it, is being seriously disputed. It has further not been disputed by both the parties that the construction has been raised on the site and is under further progress. 8. The prayer made in the plaint is that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative, a decree for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with interest at the rate of 22.75% per annum with quarterly rests be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. A decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction is also sought directing the defendant to remove the RCC. Columns as well as the slab which has illegally and unauthorisedly been constructed on the site and the possesion of the vacant site be handed over to him. 9. I am purposely refraining myself from making any observations in respect of the interpretation and construction of the agreement as well as other material placed on record by the parties lest it may form an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or would have the affect on the final judgment to be passed in the case. Even the written statement has not been filed. The suit has been presented in this Court only a day before. The parties have to lead evidence on their respective pleas and prove the documents that are being relied upon. I do not, thus, deem it fit and proper to make any observations which may ultimately cause prejudice to either of the parties. 10. On an overall analysis, the defendant is restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering or charging the property in any manner whatsoever till the final decision of the suit. I do not, thus, deem it fit and proper to make any observations which may ultimately cause prejudice to either of the parties. 10. On an overall analysis, the defendant is restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering or charging the property in any manner whatsoever till the final decision of the suit. The defendant may, however, go ahead with the construction that is being raised at the site but this construction shall be raised by her at her own risk and responsibility. It is further made clear that the defendant, in the event of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, shall not be entitled to claim any equity for the construction so raised by her. 11. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly.