JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 8th April, 1997 passed by Shri Ranjit Mukherjee, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah, whereby and whereunder the said learned court passed an order of injunction restraining the defendant appellants from causing and/or executing any sale deed in respect of the property described in the schedule appended to the plaint and from registering-the same in favour of any third party other than the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff-respondent is admittedly a tenant under the appellants in respect of a portion of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, an oral agreement for sale was entered into in respect of the premises in question. However, the respondent allegedly in violation of the said agreement intends to sell out the property in favour of a third party. In the aforementioned situation, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contrat. The learned Trial Judge by reason of the impugnpt} order, inter alia, took into consideration the relationship of the parties. The learned Trial Judge however without assigning any reason and without considering the materials which might have been placed before him, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent appears to have made out a prima facie case. The learned Trial Judge has also not assigned any reason as to how balance of convenience and inconvenience weighed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge further allegedly keeping in view the urgency, passed an interim order in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 2. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of oral agreement is maintainable. However, the onus in such a situation would be heavy on the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent at the stage of grant of ad interim injunction must come out with strong prima facie case so as to enable the court to grant injunction inasmuch as it is now well settled that by reason of an agreement for sale the party does not derive any interest in the property in view of the provisions as contained in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Furthermore, in the instant case admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion of the suit-premises. He cannot be evicted by the appellants unless a decree for his eviction is obtained by them. Furthermore, in the instant case admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion of the suit-premises. He cannot be evicted by the appellants unless a decree for his eviction is obtained by them. In that view of the matter, possession of the plaintiff-respondent would not be disturbed. Keeping in view the fact that the defendants-appellants have already purchased the Stamp Papers, in our opinion, the balance or convenience lies in favour of the defendants-appellants keeping in view the provisions as contained in Sections 23 and 25 of the Indian Registration Act. Furthermore, even if the defendants-appellants sell out the property in favour of the third party, the third party would be deemed to have noticed of the agreement itself and thus the same would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendense. Thus, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in the event the plaintiff-defendant succeeds in the suit, the appellants and/or their vendee would be bound by such decree and the learned Trial Judge would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order so as to sub-sere the interest of justice. 3. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that balance of convenience lies in favour of refusal to pass an order of injunction, the plaintiff-respondent also shall not suffer any injury far less any irreparable or irretrievable injury so as to merit for grant of an order of injunction. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the defendants-appellants and/or their vendees during the pendency of the suit should not change the nature and character of the suit premises. This order is being passed keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff-respondent is in possession of the suit premises as tenant only in respect of portion thereof. 4. For the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Trial Judge, however, shall consider the desirability of disposing of the suit at an early date and preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order. 5. There will be no order as to costs. Bhaskar Bhattacharyya, J. : I agree. Appeal allowed, Impugned order set aside.