The judgment established the discretionary nature of the relief of injunction, emphasizing the need for a serious disputed question to be tried and the existence of a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the defendants against the order passed on 16. 8. 2000 by learned Single Judge on the application filed by the plaintiff/ respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Criminal Procedure Code. " ). By the impugned order ex parte ad interim order of injunction was confirmed subject to the condition of the plaintiff depositing in Court within six weeks the entire balance consideration of Rs. 23,00. 000. 00.

( 2 ). Facts in brief are that on 7. 8. 1996 the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for specific performance of agreement by directing the defendants to execute necessary transfer documents in her favour, pursuant to the agreement, which had been entered into between the plaintiff and late Shri Nanak Chand. Decree has been claimed, inter alia, alleging that on 6. 5. 1995 an agreement was entered into between her and late shri Nanak Chand by which Nanak Chand had agreed transfer property No. A-67. Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034 for consideration of Rs. 25,00. 000. 00 out of which a sum of Rs. 2,00. 000. 00 was paid as earnest money and the balance payment of rs. 23,00. 000. 00 was to be made to Nanak Chand at the time of execution of the transfer documents. Unfortunately, Nanak Chand expired in the second week of July 1995 leaving behind the defendants, who are his legal heirs. In August, 1995, the plaintiff approached the legal heirs apprising them of their legal obligation to complete the transaction by accepting balance sale consideration but they failed to oblige the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no other option left except to send a notice dated 13. 6. 1996 through her counsel calling upon the defendant to fix a specific date and time for completion the sale transaction, to receive the balance sale consideration and deliver possession of the property. Despite due service of notice, the defendants failed to discharge their obligation. Accordingly, decree was prayed. The suit was resisted by the defendants.

( 3 ) ALONG with the suit the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Criminal Procedure Code. on which an ex parte ad interim order of injunction was passed on 13. 8. 1996 restraining the defendants from interfering or alienating the property. The defendants also filed application seeking vacation of the ex parte order of injunction and one of the grounds on which vacation of injunction was sought is that the agreement provide that on failure of Nanak Chand to execute sale deed, the plaintiff will be entitled to double the amount, paid by way of earnest money by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, parties were heard by learned single Judge. On behalf of the defendants/appellants reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dadarao and another Vs. Ramrao and others jt 1999 (8) S. C. 608. Learned Single Judge did notice the judgment of Supreme court but observed that since issues had already been framed on 19. 11. 1998, one of which was whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief for specific performance, the same can be decided only after trial of the suit as to whether or not relief for specific performance can be granted to the plaintiff. Therefore, judgment of Supreme Court in dadarao s case (supra) will not be applicable in as much as only at the time of final decision of the suit it will have to be seen whether a discretionary relief is or is not to be granted. Accordingly, ex parte order of injunction was confirmed but subject to the condition of deposit of the aforementioned sum, which was duly deposited by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendants made his submissions on the basis of the decision in Dadarao s case (supra ). Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent on the other hand urged that as issues had already been framed, the suit has to go for trial. The plaintiff has now