AJAY KUMAR GOYAL vs SANJAY GOYAL NOW DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ANJU GOYAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 19.12.2025 + FAO 91/2025 and CM APPL. 20553/2025 AJAY KUMAR GOYAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rakesh Tanwar, Ms. Sanjana Gupta and Mr. Varun Arora, Advocates. versus SANJAY GOYAL NOW DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ANJU GOYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Goel and Mr. Avdesh Rai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. This appeal under XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the plaintiff in Civ DJ 163/2023 on the file of learned District Judge-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2025, whereby his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was dismissed. Signature Not Verified Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 1 DHAWAN Signing Date:20.12.2025 14:07:56 2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he entered into an agreement to purchase dated 11.10.2021 (the sale agreement) with the father of the respondents/defendants for the purchase of the suit property and paid approximately 10% of the agreed sale consideration as advance, in cash, at the time of execution of the agreement. As the sale agreement did not materialize, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was moved by the appellant/plaintiff, apprehending creation of third-party interest in the suit property by the respondents/defendants. 3. The respondents/defendants entered appearance and contended, inter alia, that the sale agreement relied upon by the appellant/ plaintiff is forged and fabricated and that their father had never executed any such agreement. 4. The trial court, after hearing both sides, was not inclined to al