JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This first appeal from order has been filed by Sri Jaswant Singh. 2. Sri Jaswant Singh filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract of sale of land under an agreement dated 5-4-1976 whereby the defendants no. 1 and 2 are alleged to have agreed to sell the plots in suit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that despite the agreement the defendants were trying to dispose of the property in suit to others. The defendants no. 3 to 5 were arrayed as respondents as they had purchased the land from the defendants no. 1 and 2 which was covered by the agreement of sale and were making constructions. 3. The plaintiff in the suit applied for the grant of an injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 and 2 from transferring the property in suit and further sought an injunction restraining the defendants no. 3 to 5 from making any construction over the land sold by the defendants no. 1 and 2. 4. The trial court rejected the application. It is against this order rejecting the application for injunction that this appeal has been preferred. 5. It appears that earlier also there was a similar dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants no. 1 and 2 who were trying to sell the land. This led to the institution of Suit No. 62 of 1976, Jaswant Singh v. Smt. Gur Bhajan Kaur. This suit was decided in terms of an application 22-A filed by both the parties. 22-A simply recited that the parties had settled their differences and that the plaintiff did not want to pursue the suit. It was prayed that in view of the compromise the case be consigned to the Record Room. The Court by its decree dated 8-8-1977 passed an order in terms of the prayer contained in the application 22-A. The effect of the decree in that suit was that the suit stood dismissed as no relief was granted to the plaintiff. 6. The trial court has found that the plaintiff has neither proved prima facie case, with which we are in agreement. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction. Further the trial court has rightly expressed the view that if the plaintiff establishes the agreement he can adequately be compensated in terms of money for any loss occasioned to him. 7. The trial court has found that the plaintiff has neither proved prima facie case, with which we are in agreement. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction. Further the trial court has rightly expressed the view that if the plaintiff establishes the agreement he can adequately be compensated in terms of money for any loss occasioned to him. 7. In the circumstances, the trial court was justified in refusing to grant the interim injunction. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.