JUDGMENT:- Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, having considered the nature of the appeal from order and controversy brought to the Court. 2. Admit. By consent taken up for final disposal. 3. The appellants are plaintiffs in the Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2008 ("suit"). which was filed in the month of March. 2008. This suit has been followed by an application Exhibit 5 under section 94 read with Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code ("CPC"). In this suit, there are two defendants, who are present respondents in this appeal. Parties. Hereinafter, are being referred to their original status in the suit. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties, rejected the application for temporary injunction. Plaintiffs in their application for temporary injunction had made two fold prayer in prayer clause (B). Firstly, respondents (defendants) be restrained by an order of temporary injunction from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest on immovable properties, situated at Osmanpura. Aurangabad, which are more specifically detailed in the prayer clause (B) of the application for temporary injunction. This temporary injunction application, after hearing the parties, came to be rejected by the trial court. Apart from these two fold prayers, one more prayer is made at prayer clause (D) to the effect that respondents I and 2 by way of temporary injunction be restrained from causing obstruction, interference and disturbance in the peaceful possession and development activities of applicant No.1 over the suit properties as mentioned hereinabove, till final disposal of the suit. Thus, the original plaintiffs are before this Court. 5. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about two development agreements (registered documents), two irrevocable power of attorneys (registered documents), deed of clarification (registered documents) and exchange of notice in between the parties. There is also no dispute regarding description of the properties. Shri. Shah, learned Sr. Advocate with these undisputed facts, invited my attention to the first written communication amongst the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. It is the notice to plaintiffs through Advocate on 22.3.2005. Advocate for appellants submits that defendant No.1 had accepted liability and responsibility for eviction of the tenants in the property. In support of his submission, he invited my attention to paragraph No.3 of the notice dated 22.3.2005, page 49 of the compilation. It is the notice to plaintiffs through Advocate on 22.3.2005. Advocate for appellants submits that defendant No.1 had accepted liability and responsibility for eviction of the tenants in the property. In support of his submission, he invited my attention to paragraph No.3 of the notice dated 22.3.2005, page 49 of the compilation. In substance, it has been stated in paragraph No.3 that there are tenants in the property, subject matter of development and those tenants were to be evicted from the property. The responsibility of evicting the tenants is no doubt on defendant. No.1. It is further mentioned that there is a specific clause in the development agreement that a reasonable amount that may be required for vacating the tenanted premises will be paid by the developer (plaintiff) and those amounts would be deducted from the constructed sellable area to be allotted to defendant No.1. Shri. Shah, Senior Advocate has also invited my attention to notice, reply and various clauses of the development agreements, power of attorneys etc.. He submitted that there is an utter failure on the part of •defendant No.1 to evict the tenants. According to him, even the details are not furnished by defendant No.1 as to how many tenants are there and was there any negotiations amongst defendant No.1 and tenants for eviction of the property etc. No efforts have been put into by defendant No.1 seeking eviction of tenants. It is a matter of common knowledge that unless tenants are evicted from the suit property, consisting of old construction, it cannot be handed over or made available to the plaintiffs to carry out development activities and development agreements could not have been materialised. According to him, parties are warring on a point as to who has committed breach of the agreement. The plaintiffs are accusing defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 in contrast, putting the blame on the plaintiffs. It being a question of fact requires leading of the evidence and determination of same by the Court regarding finding on question of facts. At the interim stage, according to learned Senior Advocate, material which is on record, needs to be considered, In substance, development agreement executed by defendant No.1 permits the plaintiffs to develop the property and enjoy 60% of the developed property in accordance with the development agreement, irrevocable power of attorney and deed of clarification in lieu of the consideration. At the interim stage, according to learned Senior Advocate, material which is on record, needs to be considered, In substance, development agreement executed by defendant No.1 permits the plaintiffs to develop the property and enjoy 60% of the developed property in accordance with the development agreement, irrevocable power of attorney and deed of clarification in lieu of the consideration. Right is created In favour of the plaintiffs, which could be determined by the Court at the end of delivering the judgment in the suit itself. Till then the status quo needs to be maintained regarding the nature of the property and status pertaining to ownership of the property. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharwal Khewaji Trust Vs. Baladev Dass [(2004)8 see 488 : (2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 3)]. 6. Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for defendant No.2 submits that he has purchased the suit properties by two registered sale deeds. Copies of the sale deeds have been placed on record. One of the sale deed makes a mention that consideration is Rs.47,00,000/- and another transaction in favour of defendant No.2 refers an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and odd towards consideration. He submits that he has acquired ownership to the suit properties for valuable consideration and he has been put into actual and physical possession. He applied to the planning authority and obtained building permission and activities after developing the property and/or construction have been undertaken by him. He has referred to page No.214, copy of the building plan and some photographs in support of his submissions. He submitted that payment of Rs.11,000/- is alleged]y made by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs did not take any step after execution of development agreements and it was nothing but "killing of time" by the plaintiffs. Date of the filing of the suit in the year 2008, after 5-6 months even from the date of sale deed, is the circumstance pointed out by Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for defendant No.2. 7. With the assistance of the learned Senior Advocate I have gone through the pleadings raised in temporary injunction application Exhibit 5. In paragraph Nos.1 to 4, details of the various documents, allegedly executed by and between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have been given. 7. With the assistance of the learned Senior Advocate I have gone through the pleadings raised in temporary injunction application Exhibit 5. In paragraph Nos.1 to 4, details of the various documents, allegedly executed by and between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have been given. Paragraph No.5 gives the items mutually agreed amongst the plaintiff and defendant No.1, part of the original development agreement dated 30.7.2003, terms of another registered development agreement dated 6.9.2003, which have been listed in paragraph No.7. Paragraph No.14 of this temporary injunction application makes a reference that the plaintiffs have also arranged and hold various meetings with the tenants and tried to pursue them. According to plaintiffs, defendant No.1 many a times avoided to attend the meeting. In paragraph No.15, reference is made to notice dated 22.3.2005 addressed by defendant No.1 to plaintiffs through Advocate. Paragraph No.19 makes a reference to reply notice by plaintiffs to defendant No.1. This application, in paragraph No.30, makes some statements that plaintiffs have proved their prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in their favour as development agreement dated 30.7.2003 and 6.9.2003 still subsists and if the temporary injunction is not granted, respondents may be likely to cause disturbance in the peaceful possession and development activities of the applicants over the suit properties. In that event, the applicants shall suffer legal injury and legal rights of the applicants shall be deprived of, which cannot be measured or can be compensated in terms of money. 8. With the assistance of learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. I have substantially read the pleadings in this temporary injunction application. Another reason for minute scrutiny is from the view point of paragraph No. 10 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Trust, [2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 3] (supra). The Supreme Court has held that party has to make out a case of irreparable loss in case of non-grant of temporary injunction. 9. It is apposite at this stage to refer to page No.130, copy of the reply filed by defendant No.1 in the trial court. Paragraph No.33 thereof mentions that the documents which are being referred by the plaintiffs, as alleged minutes, are the list of details given by this defendant to the plaintiffs. There is no signature on the documents to show that they are minutes. Paragraph No.33 thereof mentions that the documents which are being referred by the plaintiffs, as alleged minutes, are the list of details given by this defendant to the plaintiffs. There is no signature on the documents to show that they are minutes. The detailed information provided by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs by giving list of tenants, payment of taxes etc. itself shows that there is no fault on the part of defendant No.1. It is further stated that there is no question of avoidance by defendant No.1 and no meetings have been held. Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate submits that this list of tenants and other details like payment of taxes which were given by defendant No.1, to plaintiffs has been filed in the trial court by the plaintiffs. He, therefore, wants to indicate, prima facie, that defendant No.1 had taken steps in relation to issue of getting possession of the property from the tenants and/or eviction of tenants. There is an affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 which starts from page No.140. Learned Advocate for appellants, from this affidavit. page No.146, has pointed out a statement. "I say that I have executed sale deed of one flat so also had entered into an agreement of sale of shops in favour of various persons". In his opinion, this statement is deliberately made by defendant No.2 bereft of details. It was quite possible for defendant No.2 to furnish details as to how many transactions/agreements have been entered into by defendant No.2 in favour of third parties, for how much consideration, how much is the area etc. Such statement is made only with an intention to have scope of adjustment in future. In his opinion, the balance of convenience cannot be claimed by defendant No.2 for the reason that vested rights with the plaintiffs by registered instruments referred to above cannot be permitted to be defeated by rejecting the application of the plaintiff at this stage under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The suit in question, indisputably, is of 2008. The development agreements, dates are on record, are of 2003. Payment in the case on hand, indisputably made by plaintiffs to defendant No.1 is Rs. 11,000/- alone. After the development of the property one would not be in a position as of today, what would be the costs of superstructure (market price). The suit in question, indisputably, is of 2008. The development agreements, dates are on record, are of 2003. Payment in the case on hand, indisputably made by plaintiffs to defendant No.1 is Rs. 11,000/- alone. After the development of the property one would not be in a position as of today, what would be the costs of superstructure (market price). The ownership of defendant No.1 has not been challenged either by plaintiffs or by defendant No.2. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are members of the same fraternity. With their own capital, skill. labour and legal rights and intelligence they are entitled to make out a profit. From the transaction willingly entered in to by defendant No.1, in relation to various properties, which are subject matter of the suit, the fact cannot be lost sight in relation to plaintiffs and defendant No.1 that the valuable properties of defendant No.1 are made hostage and/or hold on by the plaintiffs for the substantial period of time i.e. from the date of agreement till today and/or we can say till the date of execution of the alleged sale deeds by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. This circumstance, strongly, weighs in favour of defendant No.1. The conduct of plaintiffs and defendant No.2. pleadings and circumstances brought on record leads me to hold that prima facie case and balance of convenience weighs in favour of defendant No.2. The judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts need to be read in the background of facts and questions raised before the Court. The facts in the case on hand are material. Mostly, facts are not disputed. Pleadings is an important part of the civil litigation. The Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal [2008 AIR SCW 4355 : (2008 ALL SCR 2139)] has held that it is the basic foundation of the stance taken by the party. In this view point, I have meticulously considered the entire pleadings of the plaintiffs with the assistance of respective counsel. Apart from the various documents, some history and reference to transaction of sale in between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, there is no substantial pleadings raised by plaintiffs as to what irreparable loss could be put to the plaintiffs in the case of refusal of their application. Apart from the various documents, some history and reference to transaction of sale in between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, there is no substantial pleadings raised by plaintiffs as to what irreparable loss could be put to the plaintiffs in the case of refusal of their application. While making these observations, I am not oblivious to the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that 60% part of the property as per development agreement is allotted and/or agreed to be allotted to the plaintiffs meaning thereby that the plaintiffs can enjoy that property in their own way and recover the consideration for that part of the property. Equally, I cannot forget the fact that superstructure which was agreed to be constructed by the plaintiffs in view of the development agreements and irrevocable power of attorney requires a piece of land, which indisputably on the date of filing of the suit and/ or date of development agreement or execution of power of attorney was owned by defendant No.1. In this background, balance of convenience between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 has been considered by me. I came to a conclusion that such balance tilts in favour of defendant. 10. The transaction entered into by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant NO.2 is during pendency of the suit. At this stage. I am not expressing any opinion since more than one question of fact involved in this suit is required to be resolved by the Court after recording the evidence and in accordance with law. 11. The defendant No.2 has filed reply affidavit. The transaction and/or his claim that he has acquired ownership to the property, I have just referred but I am not expressing any opinion. However, record shows that he has approached the planning authority, obtained sanction to building plan and has put up some construction on the property. All this must have required by him with the capital either of his own, borrowed- either from financial agencies or other sources, with price of money to be paid, labour, his skill, intelligence etc. At this stage, if the prayer of plaintiffs is accepted, regarding status quo, meaning thereby halting the construction activity, he is bound to suffer a lot in comparison with the plaintiffs. who have parted with just Rs.11,000/- in 2003. At this stage, if the prayer of plaintiffs is accepted, regarding status quo, meaning thereby halting the construction activity, he is bound to suffer a lot in comparison with the plaintiffs. who have parted with just Rs.11,000/- in 2003. Another prayer of the plaintiffs prohibiting alienation would be very disastrous in the facts and circumstances of the case in relation to plaintiffs and defendant No.2. In my view, this appeal and civil application needs to be dismissed. 12. Shri. Shah, learned Senior Advocate sought early hearing of the suit during the course of the arguments. He submitted that question of facts can be resolved on evidence. This Court can give time frame for decision of the suit. The submission is attractive. This Court has taken into consideration the date of filing of the suit in question. On my query, both learned counsel could not furnish the date of filing the suit, but from the record, it appears that it was filed in March, 2008. Pendency of the suits in the civil court is not required to be worded any more. Suffice it to say that there is a large pendency of the suits. Litigants who have earlier approached the Court are waiting for their turn to come. Despite this fact, this Court in all facts and circumstances, requires to give appropriate directions for early disposal of the suit within stipulated period of time. There are number of circumstances, which are required to he taken into consideration by this Court. In the given case, this Court is thus giving time frame for disposal of the suit. In the case on hand, since it is a suit filed by the plaintiffs, in March, 2008, in my view, it would not be appropriate for this Court to ask the Court seized with hearing of the Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2008 to keep of the, matters aside and give topmost or even simplicitor priority to hearing of this suit. The dore, I am not giving such direction for speedy disposal of the suit. However, endeavour for speedy disposal of the suit is a duty cast upon every Court. The dore, I am not giving such direction for speedy disposal of the suit. However, endeavour for speedy disposal of the suit is a duty cast upon every Court. 1 hope and trust that the Court seized with hearing of this Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2008, if moved by any of the parties to this suit, taking into consideration all relevant factors, may proceed with the hearing of the suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2008. at appropriate time and without giving unprecedented priority. If the Court gives priority for hearing, the Court shall put on record specific reasons, therefor. 13. Time for resolution of the civil disputes pending in the Court or by the court is a matter of great concern to everyone in the litigant fraternity. Ordinarily the Courts are used to pass orders regarding costs as "Parties to bear their own costs" etc., Awarding of costs was not the usual phenomena. At least with the Civil Courts. Changing times. pendency of the litigation have manifold reasons. "Costs to be awarded by the Court" was a matter of concern for the Supreme Court. In the case of Salem Bar Association [ (2005)6 SCC 344 : (2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 876)], the Supreme Court of India has disapproved such practice of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. End result would be that the winner sometimes is proved to be looser in terms of value and stakes involved in the case. Therefore, I have put a specific question to Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, as to whether he is interested in costs. He made a statement that in appeal he may not claim but in civil application he is pressing for the costs. The costs is not figured out by Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri. Shah, learned Senior Advocate submits that since day one i.e. date of filing of the suit till today, he is before the Court and therefore, costs may not be imposed. 14. Ordinarily, the Courts are considering the imposition of costs from one party payable to another party to the litigation. This is on the premise that both the parties are required to attend the Court right from the trial court to the last Court, wherever lis travels. 14. Ordinarily, the Courts are considering the imposition of costs from one party payable to another party to the litigation. This is on the premise that both the parties are required to attend the Court right from the trial court to the last Court, wherever lis travels. The parties are required to pursue the case from Court to Court, place to place and are required to put expenses. There, in this background, costs is considered from the winner to the looser of the judgment or verdict. In my view, time has now come to consider status of another party eligible to costs. That another party, in my view, prima facie, is the State Government. The availability of the infrastructure and staff to the Courts functioning within the territory of the State is the primary responsibility of the State Government. For discharging this primary responsibility, State has to carve out some funds, probably which could be utilised for development activities in the larger public interest. Therefore, in an appropriate case. costs considering the facts and circumstances and time taken by the litigation may be imposed, payable to the State Government. In the case on hand, in my view, this Appeal from Order is a case of such nature. 15. Appeal from order stands dismissed, Since, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 who addressed the Court, participated in the hearing, did not press for the costs, I am not passing any order of costs in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is not present. She is neither represented by the Advocate. Therefore, no costs to be awarded to defendant No.1. 16. Probably such being the ratio, I called upon both counsel to address the Court. Shri. Shah, learned Sr. Advocate submits that to create and maintain the administration of justice system, is the duty of the State. In case of finding of the court that it is a frivolous litigation, the Court may impose costs. Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, on this issue submits that in the case on hand, it was not justifiable on the part of plaintiffs to file and pursue the suit. In substance, he favours imposition of the costs payable to the State Government by the plaintiffs. 17. Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, on this issue submits that in the case on hand, it was not justifiable on the part of plaintiffs to file and pursue the suit. In substance, he favours imposition of the costs payable to the State Government by the plaintiffs. 17. Imposition of costs after recording of finding that proceeding is frivolous is another phenomena which leads to further order of payment of appropriate costs to the looser in the litigation. In that case, there is no question of augmentation of State Exchequer, which otherwise is being contributed mainly by the tax payers and other legal sources. In my view, therefore, this may not be a criteria for imposing the costs payable to the State Government. The time has its own power and value, either beneficial to someone or cause nuisance to others. Utilisation of time with the assistance of the ad-judicatory forum needs to be considered to approach adjudicating forum by the various litigants, may be subject matter of scrutiny and finding to be recorded by the adjudicator. The fact remains that time is required to be spent for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties and resolution of the issues brought before the Court. Shri. Shah, learned Senior Advocate is partly justified in saying that the administration of justice is a responsibility of the State Government. Then, with this part acceptance, it is not possible for me to go away from basic issue of imposition of costs payable to the State Government. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the status of the plaintiffs and the nature of transaction allegedly entered into with defendant No.1. in my view. Rs.30.000/- would be the appropriate costs. This view. I am taking while quantifying the costs with all humility at my command. Today, since 11.00 am I am hearing this matter and passing order, which now is completed at 1.30 pm. Shri. Shah. Senior Advocate seeks one weeks time. Fairly, to deposit the costs. 19. The appellants shall deposit this amount of Rs.30.000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with Treasury Aurangabad and furnish authentic copy of challan to Registrar (Judicial) of this Court 20. So far Civil Application is concerned for the reasons recorded in the judgment/order of the main Appeal from Order. I am dismissing this Civil Application. 21. At this stage. 19. The appellants shall deposit this amount of Rs.30.000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with Treasury Aurangabad and furnish authentic copy of challan to Registrar (Judicial) of this Court 20. So far Civil Application is concerned for the reasons recorded in the judgment/order of the main Appeal from Order. I am dismissing this Civil Application. 21. At this stage. Shri. Gangapurwala learned Advocate makes a statement that since this Court has awarded costs of Rs.30.000/payable to the State Government, now he is not pressing for costs even in this Civil Application. He seeks permission to withdraw his earlier statement recorded by this Court in preceding paragraph of this judgment. Permission granted. Earlier statement made by Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and recorded in this order stands withdrawn. His statement, now made by him, that he is not interested in costs of this civil application, in view of the directions of this Court to make deposit of the costs to the State Government, is accepted and taken on record. Hence, in this Civil Application. I am not passing any order for costs payable to either defendant No.2 or State Government Civil Application, accordingly stands disposed of. 22. At this stage. Shri. Shah. Senior Advocate submits that two conditions. if imposed, would be in the interest of justice and the interest of applicants. Firstly, according to him, defendant No.2 shall be confined from seeking or claiming equity at the time of decision of the suit Secondly, defendant No.2 if enters into any transaction. regarding the suit property and/or structure, which would be put up in due course of time, he shall disclose the pendency of this Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2008 in the said agreement/document, sale deed, putting on guard the prospective purchaser. Shri. Gangapurwala, learned Advocate submits that in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act, such condition may not be imposed on defendant No.2. I have given sedate consideration to the submission. I have also considered the provision laid down under section 52 of the said Act i.e. principle of lis pendency. In my view, the plaintiffs have taken recourse to Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by filing application for temporary injunction. Section 52 of the said Act is capable and would operate accordingly. I have also considered the provision laid down under section 52 of the said Act i.e. principle of lis pendency. In my view, the plaintiffs have taken recourse to Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by filing application for temporary injunction. Section 52 of the said Act is capable and would operate accordingly. I am not inclined to impose any condition as suggested by Shri. Shah, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants. 23, Registry to make available authentic copy of this order to the concerned parties, during the course of the day.