K.N. Phaneendra, J.

This appeal is preferred calling in question the order dated 8.8.2016 passed in OS No. 5056 of 2016 on IA Nos.1 and 2 by the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowing IA No.1 in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and dismissing IA No.2.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent at the stage of admission, with consent of the learned counsels appearing on both sides on merits.

3. The plaintiff has filed two applications, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the construction work carried by the plaintiff in the suit property till the disposal of the suit and IA No.2 was filed restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff. After providing opportunity to both the parties and considering the documents produced by both the parties, the trial court has rejected IA No.2 and allowed IA No.1.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the appellants' counsel and the respondent's counsel, it is just and necessary to have brief factual matrix of the case:

It is an undisputed fact that the defendants being the owners of the land measuring 1 acre in Survey No.4/1 of Thanisandra village, K.R. Puram Hobli, have entered into a Joint Development Agreement ('JDA' for short) with the plaintiff which is duly registered on 31.12.2015 and it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have also executed a general power of attorney ('GPA' for short) in favour of the plaintiff by delivering possession of the suit schedule property as per the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. From the date of the agreement, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule property. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.35 lakhs as good Will to the defendants. The defendants have also agreed to clear all encumbrances in respect of the suit property by getting the name of one Srirangamma removed from the revenue records. With that condition, the plaintiff has taken over the possession of the property and carried on various activities for development of the property by spending more than Rs.6,30,00,000/-.

5. It is also the case of the plaintiff that they have issued four post dated cheques to the defendant of Rs.5 lakhs each and requested the defendants to take steps to remove the name of Srirangamma in the encumbrance certificate. The defendants on presenting the cheque found that the said cheques were dishonoured for want of money and subsequently, by virtue of issue of stop payment by the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants have not complied or fulfilled the conditions as per the agreement, but in utter dismay to the plaintiff, the defendants have issued a notice on 25.4.2016 stating that the plaintiff has not complied with the terms of the agreement and not paid the good will amount, therefore, the plaintiff has no capacity to complete the project as such, the defendants were to cancel the agreement, which virtually made the plaintiff to approach the court for grant of various remedies.

6. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff are always ready and willing to act in accordance with the Joint Development Agreement and in fact the defendants have taken an amount of Rs.15 lakhs as good will and suddenly demanding more money and started obstructing the construction work interfering with possession of the suit property. Therefore, they filed the suit.

7. The defendants who have entered their appearance particularly, the first defendant has filed the written statement and objections to IA Nos.1 & 2 and admitted the Joint Development Agreement and the General Power of Attorney dated 31.12.2015. It is the specific defence taken that, the defendants have cancelled