The absence of original agreements establishes lack of prima facie case required for an injunction.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The appellant / plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the order dated 6-5-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 2 - A / 06 by First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon whereby the application of the appellant / plaintiff under O.39, R.1 and R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description before the trial Court).

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract agreement with respect to the suit land with the averments that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into a contract agreement dated 15-7-2003 to sell the suit land bearing Khasra No. 218/1, area 1.82 acers situated at village Sahaspur, for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/-. A subsequent agreement was again entered into between the parties on 30-7-2003 to sell the land bearing Khasra No. 218/2, area 1.81 acres situated at village Sahaspur, for a consideration of Rs. 76,000/-. The plaintiff has paid the full consideration at the time of said agreements and the defendant No. 1 promised to execute the sale deed in the name of the persons as directed by the plaintiff and also handed over the original Rin Pustika to the plaintiff. It is also averred that the plaintiff is already in possession of the suit land as the same was delivered to him at the time of agreements as a part performance of the contract, however, defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed despite being called upon to do the same vide legal notices and has falsely denied the transaction. The defendants are contemplating to transfer the property and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, they be restrained from alienating or otherwise creating third party interest over the suit property.

4. The defendant No. 1 in reply to the application for temporary injunction, denied the execution of the sale deed and further denied the receipt of any consideration. He admitted that he advertised in the newspaper that he proposed to sell the land and claimed that he has every right to transfer his own property.

5. It is admitted fact that till the impguned order rejecting the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction has been passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff did not produce original agreements of sale in the Court despite being called upon for the same. The Court below considering the pleadings of the respective parties and further considering the fact that the plaintiff has not filed the original agreements with respect to transfer of the suit property even after seeking several adjournments for filing the same, has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove a prima facie case in his favour and accordingly dismissed the application for temporary injunction by the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of M. P. High Court reported in 1978 MPLJ 419 in the matter of Shankarlal Debiprasad Rathore v. State of U. P. and others, argues that the only consideration for grant of temporary injunction is existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and maintenance of status - quo and if the plaintiff is in a position to show that there is a serious question to be tried and the disputed questions of facts are difficult questions of law, it should be left to be decided at the conclusion of the trial.

7. Further relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and another v. M/s. M. S. S. Food Products reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1241 it is argued that the d