JUDGMENT :

Raghubir Dash, J.

1. This appeal is against the Order Dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 817 of 2013 arising out of C.S. No. 1688 of 2013 dismissing the I.A. & refusing to grant injunction restraining the Opp. Party-Respondent from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit land till disposal of the suit. The Appellant filed the C.S. claiming that the Respondent entered into an agreement with the former agreeing to sell the suit land to the latter for a consideration of Rs. 23,00,000 vide agreement dated 17.3.2013. Out of the agreed consideration amount a sum of Rs. 14,00,000 was paid at the time of signing of the agreement & the balance amount was agreed to be paid, at the time of registration of sale deed which was, as stipulated in the agreement, to be executed within five months from the date of the agreement. The Appellant made several requests to the Respondent to execute the sale deed upon receiving the balance amount but the latter did not listen. Therefore, the Appellant sent lawyer's notice on 7.10.2013. When the Appellant got reliable information that the Respondent was intending to sell the suit land to a third party he, filed the suit for specific performance of the contract with prayer for permanent injunction preventing the Respondent from executing any deed of conveyance in respect of the suit land to any outsider. The I.A. for interim injunction was filed along with the plaint.

2. The Respondent-Opp. Party filed objection to the I.A. denying that he had executed any agreement on 17.3.2013 to sell the suit land to the Appellant & that he received any amount towards part payment of the consideration. The specific stand taken by the Respondent is that Appellant's husband & the Respondent are partners of a registered partnership Firm in the name of M/s. Meenakshi Construction & Consultancy. As the Opp. Party was to stay away from the country from 8.8.2013 to 12.11.2013 he had in good faith handed over some sheets of blank letter head of the partnership firm signed by him & three sheets of signed blank white paper to the Appellant's husband to be handed over to the Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the Respondent apprehends that the alleged agreement dated 17.3.2013 has been manufactured using the said signed blank papers to grab the suit land.

3. Learned Court below dismissed the I.A. observing that an agreement to sell immovable property does not create any title or interest in the property & possession of the suit property having not been delivered to the Appellant-Petitioner in pursuance of the suit agreement, prayer for interim injunction is without any merit. The Learned Trial Court has observed that the Appellant could make out a prima facie case but neither the balance of convenience does lean in his favour nor refusal of interim injunction would cause irreparable loss to her.

4. On behalf of the Appellant it is argued that since the agreement is in respect of a piece of immovable property the Learned Court below has wrongly made a bare statement that denial of interim injunction would not cause irreparable loss to the Appellant. It is further argued that balance of convenience is in favour of the Appellant inasmuch as any alienation of the suit land to a third party would lead to multiple litigations. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that besides the absence of the ingredients of balance of convenience & irreparable injury, the very conduct of the Appellant in creating an artificial cause of action renders her disentitled to get the equitable relief of interim injunction.

5. Whether the Respondent has executed the agreement & received a part of the consideration amount or whether the suit agreement is a manufactured & manipulated one is to be decided during the trial of the suit. Unless & until it is decided that the agreement is genuine or not the Plaintiff-Appellant cannot be said to have got no pri