JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge the order of the trial Court dated 28.7.2008 by which the appellant's application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was dismissed. 3. The suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed as back as in the year 1994. There were 67 defendants. According to learned counsel for the appellant since there were 67 defendants in the trial Court, therefore, time took in deciding the application as most of the defendants could not have been served. According to learned counsel for the appellant the trial Court committed serious error of law by observing that since the original vendor with whom the plaintiff had agreement to sell has already died, therefore, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant sought relief that the property in question may not be alienated during the pendency of the suit. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. It is very convenient to say that the injunction application was not decided by the trial Court in 14 years because there were 67 defendants-non- applicants. Neither the Court was powerless nor the C.P.C. is of such nature that for effective service of large number of defendants cannot be effected in time and particularly, in the matter where relief sought is of urgent nature. All other more modes of service of the defendants' could have been used for serving the defendants by the plaintiff and at the same time, it was the duty of the Court to see that misc. Application for grant of urgent reliefs may not be dragged for decades as has been done in this case. 6. Even if it would have been a good case for . grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the Court after 14 years without any interim relief may have said that after 14 years, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief simply because the plaintiff was not vigilant in prosecution the application for interim relief and when plaintiff can wait for 14 years for interim order then it is not a case where if interim relief is not granted there will be irreparable loss to the plaintiff. 7. Be it as it may be, the injunction application of the appellant has been dismissed by the trial Court by impugned order and from facts, it appears that plaintiff's case is only for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the defendants-respondents on the basis of an earlier agreement to sell in his favour which according to the plaintiff is dated 6.10.1993 and according to the plaintiff, he paid the entire amount of the sale consideration by 17.3.1994 amounting to Rs. 5,61,000/-. The plaintiff for the reasons best known to him did not file the suit for specific performance of contract and now more than 14 years have already passed to the said agreement. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the trial Court has committed any error of law or fact in rejecting the appellant's application filed for grant of injunction. 8. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******