The main legal point established is the application of principles for granting interim injunctions, the interpretation of time as the essence of a contract, and the significance of fulfilling reciprocal promises in specific performance cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have challenged order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the application of the respondents/plaintiffs for grant of interim injunction has been allowed and the appellant/defendant has been inter alia temporarily restrained from dispossessing the respondents/plaintiffs from the suit property.

2. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Kamal Magotra, Advocate who is on caveat waives notice.

3. The appeal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties is taken up for consideration.

4. It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellant/defendant seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.09.2021 with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from dispossessing the respondents/plaintiffs from the suit property. In the plaint, it was averred that an agreement to sell came to be executed on 16.09.2021 between plaintiffs and the defendant in respect of a residential house constructed on a piece of land measuring 10 marlas under khasra No. 436 min situated at Barnai, Tehsil Jammu. The total sale consideration of the land was fixed at Rs. 65 lacs, out of which an amount of Rs. 10 lacs was received by the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement. It was pleaded that upon receipt of the earnest money by the defendant, the plaintiffs were put into possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs are stated to have paid a further sum of Rs. 6 lacs on different dates to the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, it was agreed by the defendant that he would get the revenue papers in respect of the suit property prepared from the concerned authorities, whereafter, sale deed would be registered in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that parties agreed to extend the period of performance of the agreement to sell by one year.

5. It was alleged in the plaint that in the month of February, 2023, when they approached the defendant for execution of the sale deed with the balance payment, the defendants sought further four months’ time to get requisite documents from the revenue authorities. It was alleged that on 10.06.2023, some strangers started interfering in the suit property and it came to knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendant had entered into another agreement to sell with the said strangers. Ultimately, when the defendant refused to fulfil the obligation under the agreement to sell, the plaintiffs filed the suit before the trial court in which they specifically pleaded that they are ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the defendant.

6. The suit was contested by appellant/defendant by filling his written statement. In his written statements, the defendant while admitting the execution of agreement to sell dated 16.09.2021 has contended that the plaintiffs have failed to pay the balance consideration on or before 16.02.2022 as was agreed by them and as such, they have committed a wilful breach of the conditions of the contract. It was pleaded by the defendant that he had entered into the agreement to sell as he was in urgent need of money to purchase another space to accommodate the needs of his family but the plaintiffs did not pay him the balance amount of sale consideration within the stipulated period of time.

7. It was also pleaded by the defendant that actual physical possession of the suit property is with him and the physical possession of the same was never handed over to the plaintiffs. The defendant has, however, admitted the receipt of the amount as alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint and it has been stated that the defendant is terminating the agreement to sell because of the fault committed by the plaintiffs. It has been submitted by the defendant that the plaintiffs have not shown their willingness to perform their part of the obligations under the agreement to sell as such, they have failed to make out a case for grant of d