A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to obtain a temporary injunction, which the trial Court failed to assess properly.

The appellants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”), being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the IV Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.647- A/2020, whereby application of respondents / plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction has been allowed and appellants were restrained from alienating or transferring the suit property.

02.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract, possession, damages and permanent injunction before the trial Court against the appellant / defendant and the respondent No.6 by stating that respondent No.1 had entered into the agreement to sale for purchase of the land in question on 11.03.2011 at the rate of Rs.8,75,000/- per acre amounting to total consideration of Rs.1,09,55,000/- and the respondent No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- through cheque on 01.05.2011 and some other amounts on defendants and total amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the appellants in regard of agreement and balance of Rs.94,55,000/- to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed as per the clause 6 of the agreement, but the suit land was affected by ceiling and litigation was pending. Later on ceiling proceedings were declared abated and name of the appellants have been duly recorded as Bhumiswami in the land records on 09.01.2020 and, thereafter, respondent No.1 made a request for registration of sale deed and he was ready with the balance purchase money, but the appellants did not execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 and tried to alienate the suit property thereafter, the plaintiff has issued a notice to the appellants, which was replied by his counsel. Thereafter, respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a civil suit. 03.The respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the trial Court and sought a relief of temporary injunction against the appellants regarding alienation or transfer of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. appellants have filed a reply by stating that agreement to sale stands nullified, invalid and unenforceable, as the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and State Government has taken possession of the land in question, then the appellant preferred a Writ Petition No.3214 of 2018. Respondent No.1 does not manage the expenses of the application hence, the respondent No.1 was not complied with the Clause 7 of the agreement in question and suit has been filed after lapse of three years which is also time barred.

04.After hearing both the parties, trial Court vide order dated 28.10.2023 allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff, being aggrieved by the same, appellants have preferred this appeal.

05.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts, respondent No.1 has paid one token money of Rs.15,00,000/- in the year 2011 and filed frivolous litigation, entire land bearing cost of more than Rs.6,15,00,000/-, if the injunction is not granted to the plaintiff then he will suffer only monetary loss, which could not be considered as an irreparable loss. Agreement was executed in the year 2011 and suit was filed in the year 2020 and the plaintiff did not sought any explanation for such a huge delay. The impugned order is against the provisions of Section 16 and 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act, nothing is available on record to establish that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, appellants are the lawful owner and occupier of the property in question. At the earlier stage, the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed a separate suit on the same grounds, bu