ORDER 1. The order dated 22.10.2010 passed by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2010 has been made pivot by the appellant/defendant No. 1 by filing this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC. 2. No exhaustive statements of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this appeal Suffice it to say that a suit for specific performance of contract has been filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 against present appellant and respondent No.2 to 4, who are defendants in the suit. 3. According to the plaintiff, a document of agreement of sale has been executed between the parties on 20th November, 2008 and it was agreed upon by the parties that the defendants shall alienate the suit property to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- in which the plaintiff is residing as tenant of the defendants. It is further the case of plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in advance was paid by him to defendants and this fact is also embodied in the document of agreement of sale. Further, it has been pleaded that till the sale deed is executed, the status of defendant would be that of tenant only and he would occupy the suit property as tenant. Since it came into the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendants are trying to alienate the suit property to third person, the present suit has been filed for specific performance of contract and a decree of injunction has been sought that defendants should not alienate the suit property to any third party. 4. An application for issuance of temporary injunction has also been filed by he plaintiff on the same ground and it has been prayed that till the decision of the suit, the defendants should not alienate the suit property. 5. No reply of application of issuance of temporary injunction has been filed by either of the defendant. No doubt, it is true that a written statement has been filed by them. In the written statement, the factum of the execution of the agreement of sale has been denied. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application of temporary injunction of plaintiff and restrained defendant from alienating the suit property. 7. No doubt, it is true that a written statement has been filed by them. In the written statement, the factum of the execution of the agreement of sale has been denied. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application of temporary injunction of plaintiff and restrained defendant from alienating the suit property. 7. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 assailing the said order of learned trial Court. 8. It has been contended by Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the face value of the document of alleged agreement of sale, it would become luminously clear that although, the document has been labelled as agreement of sale but it is outright a sale deed and if that would be the position, since the stamp duty on the conveyance has not been affixed and the document is not a registered document, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence. By placing reliance on a decision of Supreme Court Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (I) MPJR 113, it has been put forth by the learned counsel that looking to the ingredients of the alleged document of agreement of sale, since it is a conveyance, therefore, it is not even dismissible for collateral purpose. 9. By inviting my attention to paragraph 2 of the alleged document of agreement of sale, it has been contended by learned counsel that although, the factum of execution of the document has been denied, but, even for the sake of argument if it is held that the said document was executed, since it has been embodied in paragraph 2 of the said document that the plaintiff who is residing as tenant will not pay amount of rent and, therefore, it should be deemed that his possession on the suit property is as of owner and, therefore, the relationship of the landlord and tenant has come to an end and the document is a conveyance, therefore, since necessary stamp duty is not affixed, the same is inadmissible in evidence. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Yogendra Verma v. Dharmendra and others 2005 (1) MPLJ 118 . In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Yogendra Verma v. Dharmendra and others 2005 (1) MPLJ 118 . For these reasons it has been prayed that by allowing this appeal, the impugned order be set aside and the application of plaintiffs for the issuance of temporary injunction be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Shri P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned order and has submitted that the face value of the document itself shows that it is not a conveyance but a document of agreement of the sale only. In this context, learned counsel has invited by attention in paragraph 6 of the said document as well as the plaint averments. It has also been put forth by Shri Agrawal that the alleged document is a deed of conveyance, this has not been so pleaded by the defendant and if that would be the position, learned trial Court who was having wisdom and was also enjoying the discretionary jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction order, has rightly exercised the said jurisdiction and, therefore, this appeal sans substance and it be dismissed. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the document itself is a conveyance deed and would come within the definition of sale under section 54 of the T.P. Act is concerned, suffice it to say that on bare perusal of paragraph 6 of the said document, this Court finds that the factum of giving advance money is embodied in the document and according to this document it was agreed by the parties to get the suit property sold in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- and out of this amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been paid as advance and if that would be the position, I am of the view that the document would not come within the definition of sale but would be a document of agreement of sale only. 8,00,000/- and out of this amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been paid as advance and if that would be the position, I am of the view that the document would not come within the definition of sale but would be a document of agreement of sale only. So far as the factum of non-payment of rent of the suit premises is concerned, specifically it has been stated in the document itself that the status of plaintiff would be of tenant only till the sale deed is executed. Nowhere in the plaint the plaintiff has pleaded that he is claiming to be the owner of the suit property on account of the execution of the said document. On the contrary, on bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the plaint, this Court finds that a specific case of plaintiff is that he (plaintiff) approached the defendant repeatedly to get the sale deed executed and ultimately he sent a registered notice to them. This would mean that the plaintiff is not claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property. 13. The factum of sending the notice has been totally denied in paragraph 4 of the written statement. Inter alia, it has also been denied that plaintiff even approached the defendants to get the sale deed executed. According to me, it is a disputed question of fact and it is to be decided by learned trial Court after recording the evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that evidence has just begun. The factum of the plea of conveyance is not pleaded in the written statement. Apart from this, I am of the view at this juncture, serious questions of fact and law are not required to be determined and these questions should be left for determination at the time of passing the final judgment. Hence, the plaintiff is having a primafacie case in his favour. Apart from this, I am of the view at this juncture, serious questions of fact and law are not required to be determined and these questions should be left for determination at the time of passing the final judgment. Hence, the plaintiff is having a primafacie case in his favour. The factum of execution of the document has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiff and a copy of the notice has also been filed, the document of agreement of sale is also on record and, therefore, I am of the view that learned trial Court did not err in holding that prima facie the document of agreement of sale has been executed between the parties and if that would be the position, according to me, if during the pendency of the suit, the defendant alienates the suit property to a third party, the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss and, therefore, balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. On these factual back drop, the decisions placed reliance by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable. 14. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-, if certified. 15. Record of the trial Court be sent back so as to reach the trial Court before 6th April, 2011. Needless to say that whatever the reasons this Court has assigned will not come in the way in passing the judgment by learned trial Court.