The refusal of an interim injunction is justified due to the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case and significant delays in enforcement.

JUDGEMENT

1. Challenge in this appeal from order is order passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.613 of 2011, whereby learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dismissed the injunction application filed by the appellant – original plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff has prayed to restrain the respondents – original defendants from transferring title and possession of the suit land to any person other than the plaintiff and further to make any construction on the land bearing Block No.55, (Final Plot Nos.45 and 60) pending hearing of the suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed.

2. Parties to the proceedings would be referred to as their original status in the plaint.

3. Briefly stated, it is case of the plaintiff that her husband Ramjibhai Rabari entered into a sale agreement with defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 31.12.1997 and on the date of agreement, her husband made payment of Rs.11 lac in cash to defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. original owners of the suit land. It is case of the plaintiff that by virtue of one another writing executed on the same date, the plaintiff's husband was put into possession of the suit land and since then, her husband and upon demise of her husband on 18.12.2006, the plaintiff was in possession, but defendant Nos.3 to 6 forcibly took disadvantage of her position and in the month of January, 2011, the plaintiff came to be dispossessed forcibly and therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for performance of the sale agreement dated 31.12.1997 and also cancellation of sale deed dated 29.9.2003 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 6 in respect to suit land.

4. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the submissions of both the sides and considering the pleadings on record and after applying the principles of law in light of decision cited at bar, refused the injunction application filed by the plaintiff.

5. I have heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kavina appearing with learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta appearing with learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt for defendant Nos.3 to 6 and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Soparkar appearing with learned advocate Mr. Jigar M. Patel for defendant No.7. Though served, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred to remain absent.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kavina urged that in light of condition No.6 of sale agreement, it was the duty of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to inform the plaintiff as to the fact of being obtained permission for conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure and therefore, the transaction entered into by defendant Nos.1 and 2 with defendant Nos.3 to 6 are bad in law. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kavina, after drawing my attention towards various proceedings conducted under the revenue law with regard to nature of land, submitted that the Collector took suo motu into revision Deputy Collector's order on 30.7.2005 and revived the restrictions on the land and therefore, sale effected by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 6 is bad in law. According to him, the learned trial Judge ought to have granted relief of injunction pending the trial and in absence of relief pending hearing of the suit, the plaintiff's suit will become infructuous and it would create multiplicity of litigation if the suit property changes hand pending the trial.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that no decree fo