JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the applicants-appellants (for short 'the applicants') against the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the District Judge, Kota (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 97/2022, whereby the trial court rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court had wrongly decided the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of non applicants-respondents (for short 'the non applicants'). Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicant No. 2 wanted to purchase the disputed property in the name of his daughter (applicant No. 1) from non-applicant No. 1, for which a tehrir was written by non-applicant No. 1, according to which the property in question was agreed to be sold in a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/-. Against the aforesaid sale consideration, the non-applicant No. 1 had received Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque and rest amount of sale consideration was to be paid within two months therefrom. After some time, non-applicant No. 1 informed that Rs.1,40,00,000/- could not be shown in his bank account. He also informed that since the applicant No. 1 also had to take loan from the bank, so, in the agreement to sell which was to be executed, amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- be mentioned and rest amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- be paid in cash by applicants to non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 executed an agreement to sell on 04.03.2020 and he was given Rs.23,00,000/- in cash. Balance amount of sale consideration was to be paid upto 25.03.2020 by the applicants to non-applicant No. 1 and in lieu thereof, the non-applicant No. 1 was to execute and register the sale deed but due to corona pandemic, non-applicant No. 1, who was residing at Jodhpur showed his inability to come to Kota and informed that at the end of corona pandemic, he would come to Kota and receive the balance amount of sale consideration and would also execute and register the sale deed in favour of the applicant No. 1. When the non-applicant No. 1 did not come from Jodhpur to Kota for execution and registration of the sale deed, on 03.02.2021 the non-applicant No. 1 sent a legal notice to applicant No. 1. Subsequently the non-applicant No. 1 stated the applicants to meet agent Basant Kumar. Later on, it came to the notice of the applicants that on 09.12.2021, the non-applicant No. 1 had sold the disputed property to non-applicant No. 2 by way of agreement to sell which was registered on 22.12.2021. On that basis on 05.02.2022 the applicants sent a notice to non-applicants which was replied by them.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants were ready and willing to pay the balance amount of sale consideration and they wanted to fulfil the conditions of the agreement to sell but non-applicant No. 1 without cancelling the agreement to sell, sold the disputed property to non-applicant No. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that the bank was ready to give loan to the applicant No. 1 and they had filed a bank confirmation letter. So, order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the trial court may be set-aside and order of status-quo may be passed in favour of the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Rudresh Jhunjhunwala & Ors. v. Satish Kumar & Ors. reported in 2022 (1) RTR 545; (2) Jai Singh v. Kuldeep Sharma & Anr. reported in 2013 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1501; (3) Ram Kishore Kumawat v. Madan Lal Kumawat & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 170.

5. Learned counsel for the non-applicants have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the applicants had paid only Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. They had not paid Rs.23,00,000/- in cash and they were not ready to fulfil the co