JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Plaintiff Devender Choudhary having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below in getting temporary injunction has filed the instant civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract alleging that defendant no. 1 vide agreement dated 11.11.2004 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs 22,46,250/- and received Rs 5 lacs as earnest money and sale deed was to be executed upto 11.5.2006. Defendant no. 1 further received Rs 4 lacs as part sale consideration vide receipt dated 20.1.2005. The plaintiff tendered balance sale price to defendant no. 1 on 15.4.2005 and requested for execution of sale deed but defendant no. 1 postponed the same. The plaintiff again tendered the balance sale price to defendant no. 1 on 15.3.2006 but defendant no. 1 refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff learnt on 5.12.2006 that defendant no. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 22.6.2005 had sold the suit land to defendant no. 2. 3. The plaintiff moved application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain defendant no. 2 from changing the nature of the suit land and from alienating the same till final decision of the suit. 4. Defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte in the trial court. 5. Defendant no. 2 contested the suit and denied the averments made by the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 also alleged that it is bonafide purchaser of the suit land for consideration without notice and knowledge of alleged agreement to sell dated 11.11.2004. It was also pleaded that the nature of the suit land has already been changed from agricultural land to residential zone and layout plans have already been sanctioned by the Government after charging huge amount of fees from defendant no. 2 and accordingly, defendant no. 2 has to develop the residential colony within stipulated period failing which defendant no. 2 would be subjected to heavy penalties and also prosecution. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad vide order dated 3.9.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against said order stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 3.1.2009. Feeling still aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against said order stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 3.1.2009. Feeling still aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 8. As per own version of the petitioner, he had approached defendant no. 1 for execution of the sale deed on 15.4.2005 and again on 15.3.2006 when defendant no. 1 refused to execute the sale deed. However, in spite thereof, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 1.8.2008. Moreover, the plaintiff learnt on 5.12.2006 about sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 but in spite thereof, the plaintiff delayed the filing of the suit for one year and eight months for which there is no explanation. The plaintiff, thus, himself allowed defendant no. 2 to carry out changes in the suit land. Now the plaintiff cannot turn around and seek to injunct defendant no. 2 from changing nature of the suit land. In fact, the plaintiff is guilty of delay and laches at every stage. The plaintiff should have filed the suit immediately when defendant no. 1 refused to execute the sale deed on 15.3.2006 or at least immediately after 5.12.2006 when plaintiff came to know of the sale deed dated 22.6.2005 executed in favour of defendant no. 2. The matter does not rest here. The instant revision petition was instituted without any application for urgent hearing. The revision petition was, therefore, listed in motion hearing on 3.9.2009 but none appeared for the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 2.12.2009 when on request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for today. Now during more than four and half years after sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2, much water has flown in the Ganges and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reverse or undo the same at this stage. Even otherwise, the balance of convenience is also in favour of defendant no. 2 and against the plaintiff because defendant no. 2 has spent huge amount in carrying out construction activities and in obtaining necessary sanctions from the Government by paying huge amount of fees. Obviously, defendant no. 2 would suffer irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction asked for is granted whereas plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss and injury by refusing to grant temporary injunction. 2 has spent huge amount in carrying out construction activities and in obtaining necessary sanctions from the Government by paying huge amount of fees. Obviously, defendant no. 2 would suffer irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction asked for is granted whereas plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss and injury by refusing to grant temporary injunction. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders of the courts below. The instant revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit. ------------