JUDGMENT :

1. By this application, the appellants (original plaintiffs) are seeking injunction against respondents (original defendants), their agents, servants and all other persons claiming through or under them, restraining them from transferring, alienating, selling or leasing the suit property as mentioned in the judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2013 by learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in favour of anyone else during the pendency of the instant appeal.

2. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 herein being the owner of property bearing Nazul Plot No.1-2/98 and 1-2/99, Nazul Sheet No.99, original Layout Plots No.1 and 2 made out of lay out of field survey No.49, Village Umri, Taluka and District Akola admeasuring about 11511.048 Sq.Ft.(hereinafter referred to as the suit property), agreed to sale the suit property to the appellants/original plaintiffs as per the agreement for sale dated 13/09/2010. The appellants/original plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards part payment of consideration and remaining amount was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 09.03.2011. According to the appellants/original plaintiffs, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had obtained loan from respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank by mortgaging the suit property and also had agreed to repay loan amount and bring no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank before execution of sale deed.

3. According to the appellants/original plaintiffs they were and are ready and willing to pay and get the sale deed executed. Even they requested respondent No.1/ defendant No.1, his representative, and estate broker to get suit property measured and to bring no due certificate from the Bank, however, they failed to get suit property measured and also to bring no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant-2 Bank. On the contrary, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 informed about the cancellation of agreement as the balance consideration was not paid on 09.03.2011 and also proposed to refund earnest amount. Appellants/original plaintiffs accordingly, filed the suit.

4. The appellant’s/original plaintiff’s suit was resisted by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on the ground that the appellants/original plaintiffs were required to pay entire amount of consideration on or before 09.03.2011 as the time was essence of contract and since they had failed to make payment of balance consideration, he cancelled agreement in terms of Isar pavti. He also disputed the description of suit property as well as measurement of suit plot before execution of the sale deed and as also bringing of no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant No.2 before execution of registered sale deed. Since, the appellants/original plaintiffs had intentionally breached the essential conditions of the agreement, they are not entitled to claim equitable relief of specific performance of contract nor any other relief.

5. The learned trial judge, after hearing both the parties, was pleased to decree the suit partly and directed respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the appellants/original plaintiffs within three months from the date of the order with 6% per annum from the date of suit till actual realisation of the amount. That is how the said impugned judgment and order is challenged before me by way of present first appeal.

6. Mr. Shyam Dewani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/original plaintiffs, submits that the appellants/original plaintiffs have an excellent prima facie case to succeed in the matter. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the various observations and findings given by the learned trial judge and more particularly, invited my attention to paragraph numbers 16,19,21,23,27,42 and 48 of the impugned judgment and order. According to the learned counsel, no serious attempts were made by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 either to get the suit property me