The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant temporary injunction based on the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and long settled possession of the land by the appellants.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-5-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Anupgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) whereby the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the appellants have filed this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C.P.C.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully perused the order impugned.

3. Briefly statedfacts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for specific performance of agreement before the trial Court stating therein that respondent No. 1 Mahal Singh agreed to sell the land in question to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-on 5-3-1986. since 1996, the appellants are requesting respondent No. 1 Mahal Singh to execute the sale deed in their favour but respondent No. 1 has been avoiding and ultimately refused to execute the sale deed for the land in question.

4. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151. C.P.C. was filed by the appellants before the trial Court seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit on the facts stated in the plaint as noticed above. A reply was filed by respondent No. 1 denying the alleged agreement dated 5-3-1986. It was specifically stated that respondent No. 1 had neither entered into any agreement to sell the land in question in favour of the appellants on 5-3-1986 nor he received any consideration under the alleged agreement. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 has been continuously in possession of the land since its allotment in his favour till he sold the land in question to respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh for valuable consideration of Rs. 4,90,000/-by registered sale deed dated 3-5-2001 and since 3-5-2001, respondent No. 2 Iqbal singh is in peaceful possession of the land in question as its owner. The trial Court considering all the material placed before it, reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to establish prima facie case in their favour on the ground that the land in question has been sold to respondent No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 3-5-2001 and in the said deed, there is a recital that the possession of the land sold has been transferred in favour of vendee. As such, respondent No. 2 Iqbal singh is in peaceful possession of the land in question since 3-5-2001. The registered sale deed executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 was placed on record of the trial Court. The trial Court further observed that even if the plaintiff-appellants are in possession of the land in question, then also the rights of respondent No. 2, who is bona fide purchaser, cannot be jeopardised. The trial Court did not find balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff-appellants inasmuch as the execution of the alleged document agreement to sell dated 5-3-1986 was denied by respondent No. 1 in his reply-affidavit. The said document is unregistered and the fact that respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh is bona fide purchaser of the land in question under the registered sale deed for a valuable consideration, would be deprived of the use and occupation of the land purchased by him. While considering the question of irreparable injury, the trial Court found that in the event of refusal to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiff appellants, the plaintiff appellants would not suffer any irreparable injury or loss as the alleged agreement to sell is yet to be established and if the plaintiff appellants ultimately succeed in establishing the said agreement, they would be entitled to damages in terms of money. All the three essential ingredients necessary for grant of temporary injunction were found against the plaintiff appellants and accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff appellants seeking temporary injunction, was reje