A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant a temporary injunction, and courts cannot grant relief beyond what is sought in pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. By filing instant misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, the defendant/appellant has challenged the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sangander) [for short ‘the court below’] in TI Application No. 166/2024 (Prakash Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. M/s. A.K.G. Affordable Housing Private Limited), whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs / respondents has been partly allowed.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along-with the application for temporary injunction before the Court below mentioning that that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 81 (0.08 H), 82/01 (0.01 H), 83 (0.72 H) and 95/01 (1.37 H), in all 4 Khasras measuring 2.18 Hectares situated in Village Chak Harbanspura, Patwar Halka Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject land’) was purchased by the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2015 from Smt. Phooli Devi W/o Prabhu Narayan and since then they are in possession of the said land and mutation in their name was opened after demarcation of the land. An agreement to sell the subject land dated 11.02.2016 was executed by the plaintiffs/respondents in favour of the defendant/appellant. The consideration for the said land was Rs. 1,90,00,000/- per Bigha and, therefore, the total consideration was Rs. 16,50,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was paid by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiffs/respondents by cheques.

It was further mentioned that a sale deed was executed on 18.04.2016 where the consideration amount was mentioned at DLC rates total amounting to Rs.9,50,00,000/-. An agreement was executed on 18.04.2016 in which it was mentioned that the cheques, 11 in numbers, for remaining amount of Rs.5,54,00,000/- had been given to plaintiffs/respondents which were dishonoured and the dispute arose between the parties. Subsequently, an agreement dated 20.09.2018 (02.03.2019) was executed in which 13 cheques of the outstanding consideration amount with interest as agreed of Rs.7,95,00,000/- were given to the plaintiffs. It was further also mentioned that the defendant/appellant stopped the payment of cheques and, therefore, the cheques were returned back by the bank to the plaintiffs/respondents. On this, the plaintiffs/respondents got the construction stopped at the site. On 07.08.2021 and thereafter on 25.11.2021, the defendant/appellant tried to raise construction by taking possession of the disputed land. On this, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the court of Addl. Civil Judge No. 17, Sanganer, titled as Prakash Kumar Sharma Vs. AKG which is still pending. However, the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs in that suit was dismissed on 11.05.2022 against which a Miscellaneous Appeal is filed which is pending. It was pleaded that the defendants have the sale deed executed by playing fraud.

3. The defendant/appellant filed reply to temporary injunction application mentioning that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and have suppressed material facts. It was also submitted that the suit is barred by limitation as the sale deed was registered on 18.04.2016 and suit for cancellation has been filed after a period of 8 years. It was also pleaded that once the sale has been completed and the sale deed is registered then the sale deed cannot be challenged. The defendant/appellant has already paid the consideration amoun