IMPORTANT POINT
The principles governing temporary injunctions require a clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and evidence of irreparable injury, and any order failing to adhere to these principles is subject to appellate review.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Makrana in Civil Misc. Case No.13/2023 (CIS No.13/2023) whereby, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC as preferred by the respondent-plaintiff had been allowed.

Vide the impugned order, the learned Trial Court restrained the appellant-defendant from shifting and selling the stone excavated from the mine in question as per the choice of the respondent-plaintiff to the extent of valuation of Rs.1,19,74,254/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vide the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has virtually decreed the suit as it has granted the relief as prayed for in the suit.

Counsel, at the inception, while denying the execution of any agreement by the defendant submitted that the learned Trial Court totally ignored the fact that the present was a suit for specific performance of contract and as was clear on record, the contract/ agreement in question itself was not a valid contract which could have been enforced. When the agreement itself was not enforceable in terms of law, no interim relief qua the said agreement could have been granted.

Counsel further submitted that although the learned Trial Court itself observed that no finding qua the agreement or the diary in question could be given at this stage, however, proceeded on to grant an interim relief in favour of the plaintiff relying on the said two documents as if they had been proved on record. Once the Court refrained from recording any finding qua the said two documents, reliance upon the same was totally erroneous and in excess of jurisdiction.

Counsel further submitted that the order impugned deserves interference even on the premise that compliance of the same is totally impractical and is not feasible. It is beyond imagination as to how firstly, the stone specifically of the choice of the plaintiff would be identified and secondly, as to how and where the stone of the valuation of Rs.1,19,74,254/- would be stored.

Counsel further raised the apprehension of being alleged of contempt of the orders of the Court in both ways, even if the defendant complied with the order or he does not. The choice of the plaintiff qua the stone is a fact totally dependent upon the sweet will of the plaintiff and the defendant has been left totally on the mercy of the plaintiff vide the order impugned.

Counsel further submitted that the present was a clear case wherein, the plaintiff failed to prove any prima-facie case or any irreparable injury. Admittedly, the dispute was pertaining to a particular quantified amount of money and the same can definitely be compensated with, in terms of money if at all, the plaintiff succeeds in his suit. No interim injunction as granted by the learned Trial Court could have been granted in the present facts and circumstances.

In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the following judgments :-

(i) M/s. Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Ors.; AIR 2012 SC 2448

(ii) Dalpat Kumar & Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors.; 1993 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 507 (S.C.)

(iii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Municipal Board Chaksu & Anr.; RLW 1998(2) Raj. 1204

(iv) Sri Subramanya Sri Devara Bhandram Thokur vs. T. Srinivasa Rao; 1996(2) Civil Court Cases 76 (Karnataka)

(v) Himachal Steel Rerollers and Fabricators. vs. The Union of India & Ors.; AIR 1988 Allahabad 191.

3. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the execution of the agreement in question was very well proved on record as the stamp for the same was purchased by the son of the defendant himself and even the relevant copy of the Register of the Notary Public bearing the signatures of all the parties/witnesses was placed on record.

Counsel further submitted that interestingly, the execution of the agreement has not been denied by the defendant, his only vers