Temporary injunctions in specific performance suits require proof of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury.

ORDER

The appellants have filed this appeal against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 59 of 2021 in O.S. No. 149 of 2021, dated 26.10.2021, by the learend II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram.

2. By challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 59 of 2021 in O.S. No. 149 of 2021, the defendants have preferred this appeal. Before the trial court, the respondents herein (plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance, seeking a direction to the defendants (appellants herein) to execute a sale deed pursuant to the sale agreement dated 01.08.2012. The suit also sought permanent injunction.

3. According to the plaintiffs, under the sale agreement dated 01.08.2012, the plaintiff had paid several instalments of substantial advance amounts on various dates. However, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed as agreed and attempted to encumber the property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance, permanent injunction, and also sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property or transferring it to third parties, by filing an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, pending disposal of the suit.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the defendants 1 to 3 appeared and filed their objections. They contended that the suit property is part of a layout now known as "Taj Majestic City," comprising 55 house plots, out of which 10 plots had already been sold. They asserted that they are the absolute owners of the entire layout and that the market value of the property has appreciated significantly.

5. However, the 4th defendant (2nd respondent herein) filed a counter-

statement admitting that he had received an advance amount of Rs. 47 lakhs from the plaintiff. He explained that due to delays in obtaining DTCP approval, disputes arose concerning his share in the property. He further stated that he had already executed a separate document in favour of the 5th respondent (4th appellant) and that he has no objection to executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. Considering all submissions, the learned trial judge held that the relief of specific performance is based on equitable principles. Given the existing disputes between the parties, including the admission of the sale agreement by one of the defendants and the pendency of complaints before the police, the court observed that any encumbrance or alienation of the suit property by the defendants would result in multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, the trial court granted the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance or transferring the suit property, by allowing the said application.

7. Challenging this order, the defendants have preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the temporary injunction granted by the trial court is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. He contends that the first respondent/plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate the balance of convenience in his favour. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prove that he would suffer any irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. Hence, the interim order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

8. The counsel further argues that the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff, who can be granted relief only upon establishing his case at trial. Until then, he has no vested right or interest in the property. The