Courts must ensure plaintiffs show readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations for specific performance to be granted. The conduct of parties plays a crucial role in issuing temporary injunctions.

ORDER :

1. This misc. petition has been preferred by petitioner/defendant 1 challenging the order dated 11-3-2023 passed by 23rd District Judge, Jabalpur in MCA No. 310/2022 affirming the order dated 31-10-2022 passed by 11th Civil Judge Junior Division, Jabalpur in RCSA No. 21-A/2015 whereby learned Courts below have allowed respondents 1-2/plaintiffs’ application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE dated 11-10-2022 filed in civil suit instituted on 16-2-2015 for specific performance of three agreements of sale dated 19-2-2012 notarized on 22-2-2012.

2. Facts in short are that the respondents 1-2 instituted a civil suit for specific performance of three agreements of sale dated 19-2-2012 whereby the plaintiffs entered into agreement of sale to purchase the suit property owned and possessed by the defendant 1, for total consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (i.e. Rs. 17,57,992/- + 22,47,824/- + 59,94,184/-) out of which a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid in advance. It is specifically mentioned in the agreements that the sale deed shall be executed within a period of six months and possession of the property shall be handed over at the time of execution of sale deed, meaning thereby the time of six months was essence of contract.

3. Alleging non-fulfillment of other conditions of the agreement, the plaintiffs issued registered notices dated 8-1-2015 requiring the defendant 1 to fulfill all the conditions of the agreement dated 19-2-2012 and to inform the plaintiffs within 15 days, so that the sale deeds may be executed in the name of plaintiffs or other persons named by the plaintiffs, which was not replied and then on 16-2-2015 civil suit was filed.

4. The defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement on 16-6-2016 admitting the agreements of sale and complaining that the time was essence of contract and the plaintiffs have failed to get executed sale deeds within a fixed period of six months and the suit has been filed after lapse of 2 years 11 months and 22 days i.e. just few days before expiry of three years, hence is liable to be dismissed. However, in paragraph 1 of the written statement the defendant 1 contended that he is ready to execute the sale deeds as per prevailing Collector guideline, which is Rs. 8362/- per sq. ft. With these submissions the defendant 1 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Thereafter suit remained pending for further proceeding, regarding which no details are available before this Court, however, learned counsel for the parties informed that at present the suit is at the stage of evidence of the plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant 1 submits that on the basis of agreements dated 19-2-2012 the suit was filed on 16-2-2015 and even by filing written statement the defendant 1 had shown her willingness to sell the property on the current prevailing Collector guideline, but the plaintiffs did not show their willingness to purchase and just with a view to harass the defendant 1, instant suit was filed and the plaintiffs now want to purchase the property on the price mentioned in the agreements, which is not possible.

7. Learned counsel also submits that merely because the plaintiffs have instituted the suit on the basis of admitted agreements, cannot be a valid reason to pass order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, that too on the application filed by the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs on 11-10-2022. He submits that in the existing facts and circumstances of the case no prima facie case can be said to have been established by the