The court emphasized the necessity for clear evidence in establishing oral agreements for specific performance, confirming that the absence of a prima facie case invalidates injunction requests.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff, who has filed the special civil suit no. 483/2007 against the respondents, who are the original defendants, for specific performance of contract and possession of the suit land. The suit land admeasures 4 Acres and 20 Gunthas which is the total 1/4th share of each of the respondents-defendants in Gat No.17 which admeasures total 5 Acres and 29 Gunthas situated at Nakshatrawadi, Aurangabad. Along with this special civil suit no.483/2007, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of injunction restraining the respondents-defendants and/or anybody claiming through them, by an order of injunction, from alienating by way of sell and or creating third party interest over the suit property i.e. part of the Gat No.17 situated at Nakshatrawadi, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad to the extent of 4 acre 20 gunthas, till the disposal of the suit. The respondents-defendants filed their written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code . The learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, who considered the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit-5), rejected the same by his order dated 04.07.2008. Against this, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that there was no agreement in writing and decree is claimed on the basis of the oral agreement of sale and after going through the submissions and evidence on record, did not find prima facie case, in favour of the plaintiff. It has been further observed that whether oral agreement took place or not, is a matter of evidence and in these circumstances, the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff and no inconvenience shall be caused to the plaintiff, if injunction is refused.

3. This Court, by speaking order dated 08.10.2008, issued notice to the respondent no.1, which was made returnable on 20th November, 2008 and considering the submissions advanced by the parties and alleged transactions of 1st September, 2008, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding alienation of the suit property till 25th November, 2008. The parties were granted liberty to file additional documents on record. The notices on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 were waived. Thereafter, the interim order granted by this Court, was continued from time to time. The parties agreed that the matter may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

4. Heard Shri.A.S. Bajaj, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri. S.V. Gangapurwala, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri.R. N. Dhorde along with Shri. N.K. Chaudhary, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3. Admit. Heard, by consent, finally.

5. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract based upon the oral agreement. It is alleged that the suit property consists of 4 acres and 20 gunthas, which total of 1/4th share of each of the defendants in land gat no.17 admeasuring totally 5 acres and 29 gunthas situated at Nakshtrawadi, Aurangabad. The plaintiff has alleged in plaint that one Mr. Sadashiv Bhaurao Patil and another Mr.Balaprasad Hiralal Pandit, both residents of Aurangabad approached the plaintiff, in the month of first week of January, 2003 and expressed that the defendants are desirous to sell the suit land. The plaintiff had shown his willingness to purchase the property and therefore, the aforesaid persons handed over the plaintiff, the title documents