A plaintiff's delay in filing a suit impacts the entitlement to injunction and specific performance, as timely prosecution and adherence to evidential requirements are essential for equitable relief.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

MFA No.5938/2025 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Chikkaballapur, in O.S.No.121/2019 on I.A.No.17 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 and 7 of CPC, thereby, I.A.No.17 filed for grant of order of ad-interim temporary injunction to restrain the defendants is dismissed.

2. MFA No.5678/2025 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the common order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Chikkaballapur, in O.S.No.121/2019, on I.A.No.15 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC and on I.A.No.16 filed under Section 151 of CPC, thereby, I.A.No.15 filed for extension of the interim order granted on 17.08.2023 is rejected and I.A.No.16 filed requesting the Court to record that order dated 17.08.2023 granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff stands vacated on 17.02.2024, is allowed.

3. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance pleading that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and there was an agreement of sale between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 01.12.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.36,25,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid in cash, but thereafter, the defendant No.1 had not come forward to execute the registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

4. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers and before filing the suit, the defendant No.1 had already sold the schedule land in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff while filing the suit has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for grant of exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule properties, which was on 25.04.2019 and subsequently, the said order was confirmed on 17.08.2023. It was ordered by the trial Court while granting an order of temporary injunction that the order of temporary injunction has been in force for a period of six months from the date of order and further extension of temporary injunction order will be depending on the conduct of the case by the plaintiff expeditiously. Thereafter, the matter came to be posted on 30.02.2024. In the meantime, on 21.02.2024 the plaintiff has filed an application seeking extension of the temporary injunction, but it was dismissed and it is ordered that the order of temporary injunction dated 17.08.2023 stands vacated on 17.02.2024.

6. The defendants have filed an application I.A.No.16 seeking to record that the order dated 17.02.2023 granting order of temporary injunction stands vacated. Therefore, the order is passed dismissing I.A.No.15 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 CPC and allowed the application I.A.No.16 filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Further the trial court has dismissed I.A.No.17, which is filed for restraining the defendants from alienating