JUDGMENT :

R.D. Kothari, J.

The plaintiff in Civil Suit (CCC) No.652 of 2014 aggrieved by the rejection of interim relief, has filed the present Appeal. The plaintiffs said suit is for specific performance and for damages and other reliefs.

2. Story that emerges from the material on record is thus, an agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and defendants, on 3.5.2012. The suit property is residential flat No.201. The building is known as Yuthika. It is located at Memnagar, Ahmedabad. Against the price of Rs.90,90,000/-, plaintiff has paid Rs.90 lacs at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It is say of the defendants that plaintiff had some property dispute with her near and dear ones and in a litigation relating to that property, plaintiff had received about Rs.1.30 crores. The purchaser of the property - means the property, about which plaintiff had dispute with her close family members - the said purchaser wanted to develop that property. The defendant No.2 claims to have served as a consultant for the purpose of development of that property. At that time, work of the defendants present building - Yuthika - was in progress. It is said that at that time, plaintiff and defendants came into contact. Sample house was shown by defendants to the plaintiff (plaintiff claims that sample house was not ready at the time of initial talk and it was not ready even at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It was ready only in October, 2012). After the talk, registered agreement to sell was entered into between the parties. As per the agreement to sell, sale deed was to be executed by 31.3.2013. Then, there is different version also about what led to strained relationship between the parties. It is say of the defendants that after execution of the agreement, plaintiff started making suggestions - that she made innumerable suggestions - in respect of her flat. It is alleged that most of the suggestions were in writing and signed by the plaintiff. Continuous flow of suggestions includes making suggestion twice in a day and even four times in a day. One material suggestion for change was qua three bathrooms and the kitchen which was as late as in November, 2013.

3. It is also say of the defendants that during work in progress also, she used to make suggestion to the persons engaged in construction or she would ask the defendants to change the workman etc. That she also got some work done by her own contractor. It is also say of the defendants that she had appointed one Shri Janak Patel at the site as her supervisor. Against this, it is say of the plaintiff that Shri Janak Patel is defendants man and otherwise than that, she was not in contact or was not knowing said Shri Janak Patel. She claims that Shri Janak Patel was employed as defendants scavenger. That Shri Janak Patel and defendant have played deception/fraud with her. Shri Patel had played criminal deception by signing and acknowledging on behalf of the plaintiffs some of the bills/papers etc. Shri Patel and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had planned well and systematically. In the end, says plaintiff, state of affairs so emerge that approaching the Court becomes necessary.

3.1 In first/second week of January, 2014, plaintiff had filed complaint before the Consumer Forum. After about week or so, it was withdrawn and then, present suit was filed.

4. In substance, plaintiff has prayed for three reliefs (i) execution of sale deed (ii) to pay Rs.40 lacs as damages and (iii) defendants be directed to give surety of another Rs.40 lacs.

5. It appears that considerations that had weighed with the learned trial court in rejecting interim relief to the application are, Granting of interim relief and relief of specific performance is a discretion of the court. In exercise of such discretion, circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties are to be considered. Further, grant