The court established that a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable loss must be assessed when considering a temporary injunction application.

Judgment :

(Ganesh Ram Meena, J.)

1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the court below’) in Temporary Injunction Application No. 52/2024 (CIS No. 445/24) whereby the court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction and also to allow the said application.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement/ receipt dated 09.10.2022, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction, along-with an application for temporary injunction in regard to the land situated in different khasras, total land ad-measuring 1.7600 hectare (hereinafter to be referred to be ‘disputed land’) situated at Revenue Bagru Khurd, Patwar Halka Bhambhoria, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur in the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue record. The respondent/ defendant No.1 agreed to sale his agricultural land in lieu of total sale consideration of Rs.1,42,05,000/- on 09.10.2022 and received the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of execution of agreement/ receipt dated 09.10.2022 from the appellant and rest of sale consideration was to be paid within five months. Thereafter, the appellant transferred the sum of sale consideration on 11.10.2022 through RTGS Rs.15 lakh in the account of respondent No.1. As per the agreement dated 09.10.2022 the total sale consideration was to be paid within a period of five months to the respondent No.1 and after receiving the entire sale consideration by the respondent No.1, he was to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant within the stipulated period.

3. When service of notices could not be effected upon the respondents/ defendants then appellant moved an application before the court below for publication of the notices in the daily newspaper, which was allowed. Despite publication of the notices in the newspaper, the respondents No.1 to 3 did not appear before the court below which resulted into initiating ex-parte proceedings against the respondents / defendants No.1 to 3 and vide order dated 28.11.2024 the court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant/ applicant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the court below is against the facts available on record and contrary to the pleadings made by the parties. Counsel submitted that the respondent No.1 executed an agreement receipt dated 09.10.2022 in favour of the appellant regarding their agricultural land in presence of the witnesses and received the sale consideration at the time of agreement receipt dated 09.10.2022 and rest of the amount of sale execution of sale deed within five months but the respondent No.1 did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant regarding agricultural disputed land, whereas the respondent No.1 received the sale consideration of Rs. 17 lakh out of total sale consideration from the appellant. Counsel submitted that the court below erred in not considering the documents submitted by the appellant. Counsel submitted that the prima facie case lies in favour of the appellant as he transferred the sale consideration through cash as well as RTGS in the account of respondent No.1 regarding the disputed land according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement/ receipt dated 09.10.2022 and the appellant was ready and willing to make payment of remaining sale consideration and continuously approached the respondent No.1 for paying the sale consideration amount and asking him to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Counsel also submitted that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the appellant. Counsel further submitted that in cas