Challenge in present Appeal preferred under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code (For short CPC), is the order dated 29.4.2013 passed in Special Civil Suit No.73 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, wherein pending hearing of the suit for the specific performance based upon agreement dated 6.8.2012 in favour of the plaintiff appellant in respect of the land property admeasuring 2-21-57 H-RA-Sq. Mtr. situated at Survey No.239/1 and Survey No.239/2 in the area of village : Vijalpore, Tal. Jalalpore, Dist. Navsari (now, it would be referred to as suit property), prayed to restrain the respondents from transferring, assigning, leasing, mortgaging or transferring in any manner and further to prevent from making any construction or to change the identity of the suit property till final disposal of the suit. Parties to the present proceedings would be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

2. Brief facts leading to the present Appeal can be stated thus:

2.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for total consideration of Rs.31 Crores. Out of which Rs.5.65 Crores was paid by the plaintiff and same was acknowledged by the defendants in agreement dated 6.8.2012 in clause 4 thereof. It is the say of the plaintiff that earlier agreement/MOU dated 19.4.2012 was executed, which was cancelled by consent and fresh agreement dated 6.8.2012 came to be executed (now, it would be referred to as suit agreement). It is the case of the plaintiff that first agreement dated 16.4.2012 was entered into between the parties for total consideration of Rs.21 Crores. According to the said agreement, it was agreed between the parties to the suit that if plaintiff fails to pay consideration before extended period, on 15.6.2012, the defendants would have right to sell suit property to any third party. It is case of the plaintiff that as the defendants could not determine the lease in favour of V.V.F. Industries, the said agreement was not materialized and therefore, the plaintiff did not pay the said consideration of Rs.21 Crores and therefore, the parties to the suit were compelled to execute the suit agreement dated 6.8.2012. Vide suit agreement dated 6.8.2012, total price of the suit land was raised from Rs.21 Crores to Rs.31 Crores. It is one of the term in the agreement that the defendants will have to pay total consideration by 30.9.2012 and if the sale price is paid by 31.8.2012, then the plaintiff would be given discount of Rs.50 Lacs from the total price i.e. Rs.31 Crores and if the plaintiff does not pay by 31.8.2012, the sale price of Rs.31 Crores was to be paid by 30.9.2012. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed that the earnest money paid to the defendants towards part payment of sale price will be kept separately by the defendants and will not be used or disposed off elsewhere to its business until deal is completed.

2.2 In response to the summons/notice by the trial Court, the defendants filed its reply below Exhibit 22 and by application Exhibit 25, the defendants applied for depositing earnest money into the Court received under the suit agreement from the plaintiff, which appears to have been rejected by the trial Court. After narrating various facts leading to the transaction in question, it is specific case of the defendants that on reading of the suit agreement, it is crystal clear that time was essence of the contract and such intention is evident from the express terms set out in the suit agreement.

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. S.N. Shelat for learned advocate Mr. S.M. Shah appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(c) and Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act (now, for short Act). It is submitted that Section 10 of the Act provides that normally Court shall presume that breach of the co