The respondent's establishment of a prima facie case for the grant of injunction based on the existence of the agreement and the balance of convenience.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (R) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to set aside the order granting ad-interim injunction dated 22.02.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.850 of 2022 on the file of the learned third Additional District and Sessions Court, Dharapuram.)

1. This Appeal has been filed challenging the order of temporary injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram.

2. The respondent herein filed a Suit for Specific Performance against the appellants stating that they, along with others, had entered into a sale agreement with him on 29.10.2020, in respect of the Suit scheduled property; that he had paid an advance of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.83,58,000/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Only); that the respondent could not pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed since there was a Partition Suit pending between the appellants and their co-sharers; that the respondent helped the appellants in obtaining certain documents and also helped the parties in arriving at a compromise in the partition suit; that the respondent issued a pre-suit notice; that after the compromise decree since the appellants did not come forward to execute the sale deed, he had filed the Suit for Specific Performance. The respondent also filed a petition for a temporary injunction to restrain the appellants from alienating the Suit schedule property till the disposal of the Suit.

3. The appellants filed a counter denying all the averments made in the affidavit in support of the injunction application and stated that the Agreement is invalid, and the respondent had fabricated the Agreement by misusing signed blank stamp papers which were handed over while receiving a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only); that the loan from the respondent is now sought to be treated as an advance amount for the sale of property; and that there is no prima facie case made out and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants.

4. The Trial Court, after considering the averments in the petition and the counter, held that the respondent had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondent and hence, passed an order of interim injunction.

5 (a). Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court is unsustainable as no reasons have been assigned to hold that the respondent had established a prima facie case; that it is the specific case of the appellants that the respondent had advanced a loan and obtained blank papers; that he had filled up the blank papers to make it appear that there was an agreement of sale; that the respondent by filing this Suit cannot prevent the appellants from enjoying their property, which includes the power to alienate; that the respondent by filing a vexatious Suit is attempting to prevent the appellants, who are in dire need of money, from selling the property and thereby, coercing them to sell the property in favour of the respondent.

5 (b). The learned counsel further submitted that pending a Suit for specific performance, there is no bar in transferring the property. However, the said transfer would be subject to the result of the litigation. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thomas Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 in support of his submission.

5(c). The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants would deposit the amount received by them to the credit of the suit to show their bonafide; that prima facie this agreement is invalid and that, even otherwise, as one of the sharers had not signed the A