The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed in a specific performance suit, and the protection of the plaintiff's interest under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vinay Saraf, learned senior counsel with Shri Rizwan Khan, advocate for the respondent.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 17-1-2017, passed by the Court of learned 12th Additional District Judge, in COS No. 198-A/16, whereby the application for temporary injunction has been rejected.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 2-6-2012. According to the plaintiff in pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, he paid the amount of Rs.50.00 lakh on 7-6-2012 and Rs.1.00 crore on 15-6-2012, but despite that the defendants did not execute the sale deed in his favour. After execution of the agreement, the plaintiff came to know that the erstwhile owner had already sold the suit property to M/s Jee Developers and Ashok Wadhwani on 3-9-2005, 5-1-2006 and 18-1-2006. At the time of agreement to sale, the defendant were not the owner of the suit property. They came to know in the year 2015 that now the defendants have purchased the suit property and became the owner. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the civil suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the aforesaid application, plaintiff sought the injunction that the defendants be restrained to alienate the suit property. The respondents/defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed the reply to the application for temporary injunction by admitting that agreement to sale dated 2-6-2012 was executed with the plaintiff and at the time of agreement he paid Rs.50.00 lakh but thereafter, he has failed to pay the remaining installments which were due on 2-6-2012, 7-6-2012, 15-6-2012 and 15-7-2012, therefore, the agreement has been canceled and the advance amount paid by the appellant has been forfeited. The learned trial Court after considering the material available on record vide order dated 17-1-2017 has dismissed the application for temporary injunction with the observation that if any alienation takes place during the pendency of the suit that would be covered under section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal before this Court along with an application under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Vide order dated 18-4-2017, notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents marked their presence on 12-5-2017. Thereafter, the appellant is seeking adjournment since 22-11-2017 that there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. Till today, no such settlement has ever been arrived, therefore, this Court has insisted to the counsel for the appellant for argument on admission of this appeal.

5. Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of agreement the defendants were not the owner of the suit property. They suppressed this fact and received the amount of Rs.50.00 lakh and thereafter Rs.1.00 crore. In the year 2015, the plaintiff came to know about that the defendants have become owner and competent to execute the sale deed. When they declined to execute the sale deed, the civil suit was filed along with an application for injunction. The appellant is having prima-facie good case and hopeful. He fulfill all the conditions for grant of temporary injunction, hence, impugned order be set aside and temporary injunction be granted. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgment passed in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, reported in AIR 2005 SC 104.

6. Shri Vinay Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants submit that at the time of agreement, only Rs.50.00 lakh was paid and thereafter plaintiff had failed to pay the remaining