The grant of a temporary injunction is an equitable remedy, requiring the applicant to approach the court with clean hands. Unexplained, inordinate delay in filing a suit for specific performance, combined with a failure to demonstrate continued readiness and willingness, justifies the denial of such discretionary relief.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants- respondents, contending therein that the land belonging to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 is their khatedari land situated in the Revenue Village Naya Nagar, Tehsil Beawar. The defendants-respondents assured the plaintiff-appellant that the land in dispute was free from all encumbrances and that they had complete rights to transfer the same.

2.1 On the basis of these assurances, it was agreed that the plaintiff-appellant would purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- per bigha, and an agreement to sell was executed on 26.07.2021, which was notarized by Notary Public Ganga Agrawal, Advocate. Under the said agreement, an advance payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received by the defendants- respondents, out of which Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid in cash and Rs. 17,00,000/- was paid through various cheques.

2.2 As per the agreement, the period for performance was fixed as 12 months. During this period, it was incumbent upon the defendants-respondents to get the land demarcated through the Revenue Officer in the presence of the plaintiff-appellant to his satisfaction. It was also agreed that the period of the agreement would commence from the date of completion of demarcation at the site. Further, it was agreed that in case any dispute arises regarding the way to the disputed land, the responsibility to resolve the same would lie with the defendants-respondents.

2.3 It was further stated that another agreement was executed on 29.09.2021 with respect to Khasra Nos. 545 and 531 between the plaintiff-appellant and defendant Nos. 2 to 5, as these lands were left out in the earlier agreement dated 26.07.2021. The said agreement was executed on the same terms and conditions and was also notarized by Notary Public Ganga Agrawal, Advocate.

2.4 The defendants-respondents were not willing to perform their part of the contract, and therefore, the plaintiff-appellant are constrained to file a suit for specific performance. Along with the suit, a temporary injunction application is filed, praying that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants-respondents be restrained from making any construction on the disputed land and from alienating or creating any third-party interest therein.

2.5 It was further prayed that, in the event it is found during the pendency of the suit that the land has been transferred to any third party or possession has been handed over, such sale deeds be declared as void by way of mandatory injunction and possession be restored. It was also prayed that no mutation be entered in the names of defendant Nos. 6 to 8.

2.6 To the said application, defendant-respondent Nos. 2, 4, and 5 filed a reply, contending that the plaintiff-appellant herself stated that she had agreed to purchase 14 Khasra numbers ad measuring 17 bigha 12 biswa at the rate of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- per bigha, making the total sale consideration Rs. 21,12,00,000/-. It was further contended that the plaintiff-appellant had not properly valued the suit with respect to the second agreement relating to Khasra Nos. 545 and 531. It was also contended that the plaintiff- appellant had neither valued the relief of declaration nor paid the requisi