The delay in taking action after objections were raised, and the sale transaction to the new purchasers, did not warrant the grant of interim injunction.

ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 3.11.2021 passed below Exh-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 262 of 2018 by learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, whereby the application preferred by the original plaintiff for interim injunction was rejected, the plaintiff has preferred this Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC.

2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per the status assigned to them before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which emerge from the record, are as under:

3.1 The plaintiff has filed the above stated Suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed dated 5.7.2018 entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to 18 and 19 & 20. It is the case of the Plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 has agreed to sell the suit land to him vide agreement to sell dated 22.8.2017 and part consideration amount was paid by the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it was agreed that after the revenue entry regarding legal heirs of the deceased joint owner Dilipsinh Ganpatsinh is certified in the revenue record and after title clearance certificate is obtained, sale deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is averred by the plaintiff that as some of the co-owners expired, he impleaded the legal heirs of the deceased co-owners as party defendant Nos. 8 to 18 in the Suit.

3.2 It is further case of the plaintiff that he called upon the defendant Nos. 1 to 18 to execute the sale deed by notice dated 4.4.2018. However, behind the back of the plaintiff, they fraudulently executed registered sale deed dated 5.7.2018 in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20 without issuance of any title clearance notice. It is contended by the plaintiff that though he was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and get the title cleared, instead of selling the suit land to him, defendant Nos. 1 to 18 fraudulently sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 19 and 20.

Under this circumstance, the plaintiff was constrained to file Special Civil Suit No. 262 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge, Vadodara for specific performance of agreement to sell and to cancel the registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 18 in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20. Along with the suit, plaintiff had also moved an application for interim injunction vide Exh-5.

3.3 The application for interim injunction moved by the plaintiff came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that all the three ingredients for granting interim injunction namely prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not in favour of the plaintiff and also on the ground that defendant Nos. 19 and 20 are bonafide purchaser without any notice of the agreement to sell between plaintiff and rest of the defendants as that agreement to sell was unregistered one. Being aggrieved by this Order of the trial Court rejecting the interim injunction application, the plaintiff has preferred this Appeal from Order challenging the findings of the facts by the trial Court.

4. Heard Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the plaintiff-appellant, Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Dhruv Dave, learned advocate for defendant Nos. 19 and 20 as well as Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Prerak Oza, learned advocate for defendant Nos. 8 to 18. Perused the Written Submissions and the Citations cited by both the sides and the material placed on record.

5. Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the plaintiff, while referring to the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence produced with paper-book, has vehemently submitted that trial Court has failed to consider that all the three ingredients namely prima-facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the plaintiff. She has submitted that there was a previous agreement to sell ente