JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th August, 1993, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Hanumangarh camp Sangaria. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement, executed by the respondent in his favour for sale of his share in the land in dispute. The plaintiff was put in possession, the defendant having failed to execute the sale deed and get it registered. The plaintiff filed the present suit and he also moved an application under O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2, CPC for grant of temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. 3. The court has found that a prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff. However, looking to the circumstances that the plaintiff is in possession of the land and is taking the crop to which the defendant has no objection; and he is also prepared to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 1 lac as damages envisaged under the agreement, the trial court found that no irreparable loss shall he caused to the plaintiff and it has also found that the balance of convenience does not exist in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Having carefully perused the order and considered the arguments raised before me by learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that there is no present threat of injury to the plaintiff's right which warrants issuance of temporary injunction at this stage. Admittedly, when the plaintiff is in possession of the land under agreement to sale from the defendant, his possession against the defendant or any of his assignee is protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property. Act and from the findings of the trial court, it is apparent that defendant is not deposed to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, inasmuch as, he has no objection to the crops being taken away by the plaintiff. 5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed, as no interference is called for in the order. However, it is made clear that it will not preclude the plaintiff from moving an application afresh in case his possession is otherwise threatened.Appeal dismissed. *******