JUDGMENT M. R. SHAH, J. Present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants-original defendants No. 3 and 4 challenging the impugned order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch passed below Exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2007, by which the learned trial Court has allowed the application for interim injunction partly restraining the defendants No. 3 and 4 from transferring/alienating the suit land in question to any third party during the pendency and final disposal of the suit. 2. That the respondent No.1 herein - original plaintiff has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 95 of 2007 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 15.5.2007 executed by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (original land owners) in favour of the appellants herein-original defendants No. 3 & 4 as well as for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006 (20.1.2006) alleged to have been executed by the original defendants No. 1 and 2 (original land owners). In the alternative, the original plaintiff has prayed for a decree directing the original defendants No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- with 24% interest p.a. from the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006. The original plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for possession as well as decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring/alienating the suit property in question and restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on the land in question. It is the case of the original plaintiff that original defendants No. 1 and 2 (original land owners) have entered into one agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006 (20.1.2006) by which the original defendants No. 1 and 2 have agreed to sell the disputed suit land in question to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs out of which sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid to the original land owners towards the part sale consideration (Bana amount). That instead of execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the original land owners i.e. original defendants No.1 and 2 sold the land in question to the appellants - original defendants No. 3 and 4 by registered sale deed dated 15.5.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs. That instead of execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the original land owners i.e. original defendants No.1 and 2 sold the land in question to the appellants - original defendants No. 3 and 4 by registered sale deed dated 15.5.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs. Hence, the plaintiff instituted aforesaid suit for the aforesaid relief. That in the said suit, the original plaintiff submitted the application for interim injunction below Exh. 5 restraining the defendants from transferring alienating the suit land in question till the final disposal of the suit. Application for interim injunction was resisted by the defendants. Original defendants No. 1 and 2 - original land owners disputed the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. The original land owners also disputed the receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards part sale consideration as alleged. It was submitted that as such the public notice was given inviting the objections, if any, with respect to the sale of the land in question and when no objections were received, the defendants No. 1 and 2 - original land owners executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants No. 3 and 4. It was further submitted that after getting the land in question converted in the non agricultural use, possession of the land in question has been handed over to the defendants No. 3 and 4. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants No. 3 and 4 that they are bona fide purchasers of the land in question after full payment of sale consideration and execution of the registered sale deed in their favour and after given public notice inviting the objections, if any, with respect to the sale of the land in question and as no objections were received, defendants No. 3 and 4 have purchased the disputed land in question. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff; that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendants No. 3 and 4 as they are the bona fide purchaser of the land in question for value without notice. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the said application for interim injunction. That the learned trial Court by the impugned order allowed application Exh. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the said application for interim injunction. That the learned trial Court by the impugned order allowed application Exh. 5 in part restraining the defendants No. 3 and 4 from further transferring and/ or alienating the suit land in question till the final disposal of the suit. Hence, the original defendants No. 3 and 4 the purchaser of the land question have preferred the present Appeal from Order. 3. Shri Munshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-original defendants No.3 and 4 has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in granting the injunction in favour of the original plaintiff and against the defendants No. 3 and 4 restraining the defendants No. 3 and 4 from transferring/alienating the disputed land in question till the final disposal of the suit. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the prima facie case and balance of convenience while granting the injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that as the defendants No. 3 and 4 have purchased the disputed land in question by the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration and as they are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question for the value without notice, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants-original defendants No. 3 and 4. It is also further submitted by Shri Munshi, learned advocate for the appellants that as such a public notice was given before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendants No. 3 and 4, inviting the objection if any, against the sale of the land in question and as there were no objections by anybody, the defendants No. 3 and 4 have purchased the property in question by registered sale deed. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect was required to be considered by the learned trial Court while considering the case on prima facie case as well as balance of convenience. It is submitted that even the amount of Rs. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect was required to be considered by the learned trial Court while considering the case on prima facie case as well as balance of convenience. It is submitted that even the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants No. 1 and 2 by cash and when the defendants No. 1 and 2 have specifically denied to have executed such an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and also have specifically denied receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards the part sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to have prima facie satisfied the learned trial Court with respect to payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- which was alleged to have been paid by cash. Shri Munshi, learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia Vs. Patel Govindbhai Bhagvanbhai & Ors. reported in 2006(4) 3058 by submitting that as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision when the execution of the agreement to sell is disputed and even the part sale consideration is alleged to have been paid by cash and when receipt of such amount is disputed then the party who asserts that he has paid the amount by cash towards part sale consideration has to prima facie satisfy the Court with respect to such a payment producing passbook of the bank account and/or source of receipt of such an amount. It is submitted that in the present case though the original defendants No. 1 and 2 have specifically denied having receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards part sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff, in that case, the plaintiff ought to have satisfied the Court prima facie with respect to the source Rs. 4,50,000/- either by way of producing the passbook of the bank account and/or other material and/or even income tax return etc. It is submitted that in the present case plaintiff has failed to produce any such document and prima facie satisfy the Court with respect to payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- alleged to have been paid by cash towards part sale consideration. It is submitted that in the present case plaintiff has failed to produce any such document and prima facie satisfy the Court with respect to payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- alleged to have been paid by cash towards part sale consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in granting injunction restraining the defendants No. 3 and 4 from transferring/alienating the suit land in question more particularly, when not only the plaintiff has paid Rs. 15 lacs towards sale consideration but have also got the land converted into non agricultural use and have incurred the further expenses for the same. Therefore, it is submitted that learned trial Court has not considered aspect of balance of convenience properly while considering the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Appeal from Order. 4. Appeal from Order is opposed by Shri N.A. Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 herein original plaintiff. It is submitted that admittedly there was agreement to sell executed by the original land owners - original defendants No. 1 and 2 dated 16.1.2006(20.1.2006) and inspite of that the original owners sold the disputed land in question in favour of the appellants and, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly granted the injunction as prayed for, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court while exercising the Appellate jurisdiction. It is further submitted that as such there was agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff by which the defendants No.1 and 2 agreed to sell the disputed land for a sale consideration of Rs. 21 lacs out of which 4,50,000/- was paid to the original defendants No.1 and 2 on the very day as part sale consideration and, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly granted the injunction. 5. Shri Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 herein - original plaintiff has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel And Others reported in (2006) 8 SCC, 726, more particularly para's 125 to 127, in support of his submission that when the learned trial Court has exercised the discretion while granting the injunction, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the same, even if another view is possible. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel And Others reported in (2006) 8 SCC, 726, more particularly para's 125 to 127, in support of his submission that when the learned trial Court has exercised the discretion while granting the injunction, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the same, even if another view is possible. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wander Ltd. And Another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC, 727 by submitting that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion. It is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision the Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeal from Order. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent No.1 original plaintiff has instituted the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 15.5.2007 executed by the original defendants No. 1 and 2 (original owners) in favour of the original defendants No. 3 and 4 (appellants herein). He has also filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006(20.1.2006) alleged to have been executed by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that he has paid Rs. 4,50,000/- by way of part sale consideration to the defendants No.1 and 2 at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006. It is to be noted that the original defendants No. 1 and 2 have specifically disputed the execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006 as well as receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/- alleged to have been paid by cash. It is to be noted that the original defendants No. 1 and 2 have specifically disputed the execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006 as well as receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/- alleged to have been paid by cash. Therefore, once the execution of the agreement to sell is disputed and even the receipt of the part sale consideration which is alleged to have been paid by cash is disputed, in that case, initial burden to prima facie prove such payment which is alleged to have been paid by cash is upon the plaintiff who asserts that the said amount is paid by him. As held by the learned Single Judge in the case of Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia (supra) when the factum of payment of part sale consideration which has been alleged to have been paid by cash is seriously disputed in that case, the plaintiff is required to produce some evidence to show that whether he has withdrawn the said amount from any bank account or he has borrowed from any one. In the present case, the plaintiff has not produced anything to show that while making the payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- as alleged, he has withdrawn the said amount from any bank account or he has borrowed the money from any one. Learned Advocate for the original plaintiff is not in a position to point out any corresponding documentary evidence in the form of income tax return or the bank passbook etc. Therefore, the original plaintiffs has prima facie failed to prove and/or establish the payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- by way of part sale consideration. 7. On considering the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court allowing application Exh. 5, it appears that solely relying upon the alleged agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006/20.1.2006, which is specifically disputed by the executant, learned Judge has held that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly observed that the balance of convenience as well as irreparable loss would be in favour of the original plaintiffs. It is to be noted that original defendants No.3 and 4 have purchased the property by registered sale deed after the original land owners gave public notice in the local newspaper intending to sell the land in question and when no objections were submitted by anybody inclusive of the plaintiffs, the original defendants no. It is to be noted that original defendants No.3 and 4 have purchased the property by registered sale deed after the original land owners gave public notice in the local newspaper intending to sell the land in question and when no objections were submitted by anybody inclusive of the plaintiffs, the original defendants no. 3 and 4 have purchased the property on payment of full sale consideration. Under the circumstances, it can be said that the original defendants No. 3 and 4 are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question on payment of full sale consideration. In view of such a situation, the balance of convenience can be said to be in favour of bona fide purchaser i.e. defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Nothing is on record that original plaintiffs had submitted any objection pursuant to the public notice/advertisement in the local newspaper given by the original land owners intending to sell the land in question. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding the prima facie case as well as the balance of convenience in favour of the original plaintiffs. As such on considering the entire order passed by the learned trial Court, the learned Judge has not assigned any reason how the balance of convenience would be in favour of the original plaintiffs. As stated above, solely relying upon the alleged agreement to sell dated 16.1.2006 (20.1.2006), which has been seriously disputed, the learned Judge has observed that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs. It cannot be disputed that while considering the application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, Court is required to consider the three aspects i.e. (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience (iii) irreparable loss in terms money if the injunction as prayed for is not granted. While granting the injunction all the three aforesaid conditions are to be satisfied. Even if there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs but the balance of convenience is not in favour plaintiffs and/or if it is found that the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money even if the injunction is not granted, the Court may not grant even interim injunction. Even if there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs but the balance of convenience is not in favour plaintiffs and/or if it is found that the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money even if the injunction is not granted, the Court may not grant even interim injunction. In the present case, the learned Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspects more particularly, with respect to balance of convenience and the irreparable loss in terms of money if the interim injunction as prayed is not granted. 8. It is to be noted that in the alternative the prayer of the plaintiffs is against the defendants No.1 and 2 for return of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest. Thus, it appears that if the interim injunction as prayed for is not granted in that case, alternative prayer of the plaintiffs for a decree of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest can be considered at the time of trial. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge has not considered the relevant aspect while granting injunction. 9. Now, so far as the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 herein original plaintiffs Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. (supra) and Wander Ltd.(supra) are concerned, even in the said decision also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of the trial court when it is found that discretion has been exercised by the trial Court arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. As observed herein above, in the present case while granting the injunction the learned Judge has ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in terms of money. There is no prima face case in favour of the original plaintiff. As stated above defendants No. 3 and 4 are the bona fide purchaser of the land in question after payment of full sale consideration and after public advertisement/notice and when no objections were received and, therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendants No. 3 and 4. 10. In view of the above and for reasons stated above, impugned order passed by the learned trial Court allowing Exh. 5 application Exh. 10. In view of the above and for reasons stated above, impugned order passed by the learned trial Court allowing Exh. 5 application Exh. 5 is deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it goes without saying that in view of the pendency of the suit still the principles of lies pendence will always be applicable. Accordingly, Appeal from Order is allowed. No costs. In view of allowing the Appeal from Order, no order in Civil Application. (NRP) Appeal allowed.