This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 25th August, 1999 in Civil Suit No. 40-A/1998 by XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which the plaintiff/appellant's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit-property, was dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for enforcement of agreements dated 4.2.1998 and 31.3.1998 entered into by defendant No. 2 for sale of suit-agricultural lands. The plaintiff alleged that though the defendant No. 2 had entered into an earlier agreement on 4.2.1998, but another agreement dated 31.3.1998 was subsequently entered into between the parties by which the suit-land was agreed to be sold by the defendants 1 & 2 to the plaintiff/appellant. However, the defendants/respondents 1 & 2 subsequently on 26.2.1998 have sold the suit-land to defendants/respondents 3 & 4. The appellant alleged that he received possession of the suit-land after the earlier agreement dated 4.2.1998. The appellant also filed an application for temporary injunction praying that the defendants/respondents be restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit-land. The defendants/respondents resisted the application. The learned trial Court found that the earlier agreement dated 4.2.1998 allegedly executed by defendant/respondent No.2 and Mantakia was interpolated and there was over-writing and scratching in the date and month of the said document. It was further observed that before the subsequent agreement dated 31.3.1998, the defendants 1 & 2 have already sold the suit-land on 26.2.1998 in favour of respondents 3 & 4 and they have been put in possession. Therefore, it was found that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction was rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant is in possession of the suit-land. He had parted with substantial amount as part consideration and has paid it to respondents 1 and 2. He has also bought stamp-papers for execution of the sale-deed, in pursuance of the agreements between him and defendants 1 & 2. It has also been urged that the copy of the Panchnama filed before the Tahsildar. Panagar would indicate that he is in possession of the suit-land. It is clear that the appellant has entered into an agreement dated 31.3.1998. It has also been urged that the copy of the Panchnama filed before the Tahsildar. Panagar would indicate that he is in possession of the suit-land. It is clear that the appellant has entered into an agreement dated 31.3.1998. That being so, the earlier agreement dated 4.2.1998 even if was entered into between the parties, as has been alleged by the plaintiff/appellant, the same gets merged in the subsequent agreement dated 31.3.1998. Undisputably, the defendants 1 and 2 have transferred the suit-land by a registered sale-deed dated 26.2.1998 in favour of respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the transaction of sale as above was concluded much prior to the subsequent agreement dated 31.3.1998 between the plaintiff/appellant and the defendants/respondents 1 & 2. It is, therefore, clear that respondents 3 and 4 have acquired title over the suit-land by virtue of sale dated 26.2.1998. The effect of grant of temporary injunction would amount to depriving the respondents 3 and 4, the purchasers of the suit-land prior to the agreement dated 31.3.1998, from getting the benefit of purchase of the suit-property by them. Hence, there is no justification in the prayer of the plaintiff/appellant for temporary injunction as against the said respondents. In view of the above, the impugned-order by which prayer for temporary injunction has been rejected, is held to be fully justified. No interference in the said order is called for. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, it is expected that the trial of the suit shall be expedited.