IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for a temporary injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm, particularly in cases involving claims of oral contracts.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Admit.

2. Heard with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties for the final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The Appellants/Plaintiffs are challenging an impugned order dtd. 5/5/2023, passed below exhibit-3 by the learned Trial Court thereby rejecting temporary injunction application.

4. Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that the impugned order needs interference as learned Trial Court failed to consider relevant aspects such as concluded oral contract between the parties, irreparable loss which would be caused to the Plaintiffs, if the injunction is refused and thirdly, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the Plaintiff. He would submit that rejection of the temporary injunction application is mostly on the aspect of delay in filing the suit, not establishing an oral concluded contract and thirdly, the compensation which could be awarded to the Plaintiff as the transaction is commercial in nature.

5. Mr. Sardessai would submit that there are various and numerous documents placed on record along with WhatsApp messages which prima facie show that there was an oral and concluded contract between the plaintiffs and the original owner of the suit property. He would submit that the original owner since deceased, took a loan of around Rs.50, 00, 000.00(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from the Plaintiffs which is clearly separate from the amount advanced by the Plaintiffs towards part consideration. He would submit that the Plaintiffs and one more person by name Raja Gopalkrishna agreed to purchase a plot of land admeasuring 2500 sq.mts. for a total consideration of Rs.6.05crores. He submits that both the Plaintiffs and the third person by name Raja Gopalkrishna were supposed to purchase 3 plots, admeasuring 833 sq.mts.(2 plots) and 834sq.mts., somewhere in February, 2020. Accordingly, public notice was also issued calling for the objections. Even draft sale deeds were exchanged. Such draft sale deeds were uploaded on the website. A copy of draft sale deed was forwarded to Ramkrishna Parsekar, the person who was looking after all the affairs of deceased Mr. Jimmy Gazdar, the original owner. The only objection was in connection with "indemnity clause".

6. Mr. Sardessai would submit that there was no dispute with regard to the Sale price and infact the Plaintiffs from time to time paid an amount of Rs.38, 50, 000.00(Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the original owner, Mr. Gazdar. After the expiry of the owner Mr. Gazdar somewhere in August 2020, the Plaintiffs were dealing with Mr. Ramkrishna Parsekar and also with the defendants who are the Beneficiaries/Executors, according to the Will of Gazdar.

7. Mr. Sardessai would submit that the property of Gazdar consists of huge land, out of which 18, 481 sq.mts. was sold to the Defendant no. 3 somewhere in September, 2021. He submits that the plot which Plaintiffs agreed to purchase was adjacent to the land sold to Defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs immediately published a notice in the newspaper stating that they had a concluded contract with the original owner and called upon objections, if any.

8. Mr. Sardessai would then submit that Defendant No. 1 and 2 clandestinely sold the remaining portion of 2500 sq.mts. to Defendant no. 3 somewhere in December, 2021 for amount of Rs.8.00crores. The Plaintiffs were supposed to purchase this land as per their concluded contract. Once the Plaintiffs got this knowledge, they filed the suit for specific performance and an injunction application praying to maintain status quo with regard to area of 2500 sq.mts.

9. Mr. Sardessai would submit that Defendant No. 3 cannot be considered as bonafide purchaser as the Plaintiffs published a notice in the newspaper stating that they had a concluded contract with Mr. Jimmy Gazdar and therefore they are intending to purchase such land.

10. Mr. Sardessai would submit that since there is a concluded oral