ORDER The present appeal has been filed after expiry of period of limitation. The appellant has filed an interlocutory application, vide I. A. No. 3076 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) for condoning delay in filing the appeal. Two months and eighteen days delay has occurred in filing the appeal. 2. After hearing Sri Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and considering the ground set forth in the limitation petition, same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. 3. The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 27-08-2011 passed by learned Subordinate Judge 1st , Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sub Judge’) in Title Suit No. 394 of 2009, whereby, the petition filed on behalf of plaintiff-appellant for grant of interim injunction has been refused. 4. Short fact of the case is that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit, vide Title Suit No. 394 of 2009, for directing the defendants/respondents to execute the sale-deed, as per agreement to sale entered in between the parties. It was pleaded that defendant nos. 2 to 4 for self and as legal representative of defendant no. 1 i.e. Rural Development Environmental Protection & Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Refro’) proposed to sell out the land described in Schedule-I of the plaint and plaintiff-appellant had agreed for purchase of the said land. Negotiation had arrived for a total consideration amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- (eighty lacs) for which, an agreement for sale was executed by the defendant nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, for which, Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) was paid as advance, through cheques, draft and cash on different dates. At subsequent stage, as claimed the plaintiff-appellant further paid Rs. 1,25,000/- (one lac & twenty five thousand). However, after the agreement and receipt of the advance money, the defendants-respondents, one way or the other, were not taking any step for executing the sale-deed, even though; plaintiff-appellant was ready to pay remaining consideration amount and as such, for specific performance of contract, the suit was filed. 1,25,000/- (one lac & twenty five thousand). However, after the agreement and receipt of the advance money, the defendants-respondents, one way or the other, were not taking any step for executing the sale-deed, even though; plaintiff-appellant was ready to pay remaining consideration amount and as such, for specific performance of contract, the suit was filed. Since the defendants-respondents started to transfer the suit land through registered sale-deeds to different persons, the plaintiff-appellant filed a petition on 02-05-2011 for grant of injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents from selling the land and to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the suit. The defendants-respondents filed their show cause and opposed the injunction petition and finally learned Sub Judge, by an order dated 27-08-2011, has rejected the injunction petition, which has been assailed in the present appeal. The matter was heard even without issuance of notice to defendants-respondents. 5. Sri Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel, who has appeared on behalf of plaintiff-appellant has argued that since the agreement was entered in between the plaintiff and defendants regarding sale of suit property and advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) was already paid to the defendants and thereafter, defendants-respondents were admant not to execute final sale-seed, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract. He submits that even during the pendency of the suit, the defendants-respondents started to transfer the suit land by executing sale-deed to different persons. It was necessary for the court below to restrain the defendants-respondents by grant of temporary injunction from transferring or alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. He submits that even in a case of specific performance of contract, temporary injunction can be granted and it was a fit case for grant of temporary injunction. In support of his argument regarding grant of temporary injunction, even in a case of specific performance of contract, learned senior counsel has heavily relied on a single bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 262 (Fool Kumari Devi Vs. Krishna Deo Upadhya & Another). It was submitted that it was a fit case for grant of temporary injunction, however; the learned Sub Judge, without appreciating the facts of the case and ignoring the principle settled by this Court, has rejected the petition for grant of temporary injunction. Krishna Deo Upadhya & Another). It was submitted that it was a fit case for grant of temporary injunction, however; the learned Sub Judge, without appreciating the facts of the case and ignoring the principle settled by this Court, has rejected the petition for grant of temporary injunction. According to Sri Sinha, it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order and grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from transferring/alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 6. Besides hearing learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, I have also perused the materials available on record, including the impugned order. From the order impugned, it is evident that number of cheques, which were given by the plaintiff-appellants, had not been honoured by the Bank. It is evident from the order impugned that the defendants had filed show cause on 26-05-2011 to the injunction petition and in support of their contention, they had filed Photostat copy of the cheques, return memo bearing cheques nos. 565885, 565886, 565887 & 565888 dated 09-04-2009 issued by the plaintiff’s parents and return memo given by the Bank with cheques. It is evident that cheques were not encashed, but dishonored with the remarks ‘insufficient fund’ and some of them were dishonored by interruption of computer. The learned court below had also noticed that the defendants had alleged in paragraph 9 of the written statement that the cheques, which were issued by the parents of the plaintiff, were dishonored since the plaintiff was not fair in dealing with the purchase of the land in dispute. So far as grant of temporary injunction in a case of specific performance of contract is concerned, it is well-settled principle of law that an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property. It only provides a cause of action to him to bring a suit claiming an equitable right of purchase. Moreover, such agreement does not create any interest unless the claim is finally adjudicated and decree is passed. This proposition has been reiterated by this Court in Fool Kumari Devi’s case (supra) on which heavy reliance was placed by Sri Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. Even in the said case, this Court has negated the claim for grant of temporary injunction in a case relating to specific performance of contract. This proposition has been reiterated by this Court in Fool Kumari Devi’s case (supra) on which heavy reliance was placed by Sri Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. Even in the said case, this Court has negated the claim for grant of temporary injunction in a case relating to specific performance of contract. Moreover, in the present case, from the facts available on record, it is evident that the plaintiff himself had not proceeded with the agreement fairly and honestly otherwise some of the cheques, which were issued from the side of the plaintiff in favour of defendants-respondents, would not have dishonored. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as well as established principle of law, the Court is of the opinion that learned Sub Judge by the impugned order has rightly rejected petition filed on behalf of plaintiff-appellant for grant of interim injunction. The order impugned requires no interference.