1. This Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the discretionary order dated 21.04.2012 (for short 'impunged order' herein) passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srinagar, in a suit titled Mohammad Younis Dar v. Shamsher Singh, for specific performance of contract and for decree of permanent injunction on the ground that Shamsher Singh, defendant-respondent, is the owner of the hotel building of M/S Royal Residency, description of which is given in the plaint as also in the impugned order. 2. It is specifically averred in the plaint that the defendant Shamsher Singh executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to sell the suit property for consideration amount of rupees fourteen crores out of which fifty five lacs were paid to and received by the defendant-respondent on 12.10.2011 and the next installment of rupees 1.45 crores was to be paid on or before 30th October, 2011. But before the said date, the parties with mutual consent agreed to revise the schedule of payment and executed an agreement whereby the total value of the property was reduced from fourteen crores to thirteen crores and rupees twenty eights lacs was also paid and transferred to the account No. CD-1031 in the name of M/S Royal Residency Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. 3. Now, according to the new agreement, rupees six crores was to be paid to the respondent on 31.01.2012 and the balance amount was to be paid by or before 31.03.2012, and the payment so made was subject to clearance of all dues against the said suit property which includes liability certificate from the bank or any other financial institution, besides clearance of all the dues arising on account of electricity, water, local and municipal taxes and other liabilities, if any. 4. 4. What is seen from the record is that the plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that the defendant has taken steps and is making arrangements to alienate the suit property to the third party and has given the details in the plaint how he came to know about the said facts, which constrained him to issue a general public notice consecutively for three days through a local daily on 29th, 30th November, and 1st of December, 2011 informing the public in general that the defendant has already agreed to sell the property in question and part payment has already been made to that effect. Thereafter, the plaintiff, appellant herein, instituted the suit for decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 03.11.2011 with permanent injunction restraining the defendants, respondents herein, from alienating the suit property to any third party. Alongside the suit, an application for grant of ad interim relief was made which was resisted by the defendants, respondents herein, on various grounds taken in the memo of written statement filed by the defendants in the trial Court. 5. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel and examining the pleadings of the parties held that the plaintiff has failed to carve out a prima facie case and balance of convenience also doesn't lie in his favour. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to fulfill his part of agreement which he was required to do. It is relevant to reproduce paragraphs 2 & 3 of the impugned order, which is on internal page 11 of the impugned order, which read as under: "Without going to the assertions and counter assertions, the fact of the matter is that out of total of Rs. 13 crores of the sale consideration, the plaintiff has paid Rs. 85 lakhs to the defendants, i.e., 6.38% of the amount for which the property cannot be left hanging to suit to the convenience and the wishes of the plaintiff who has failed to make the payment of Rs. 06 crores on 31.03.2012, the amount which the defendant needed to pay to the Government department, financial institutes to get NOCs. It is also evident from the letter of financial institution showing that the defendant, owner of Hotel Royal Residency owing Rs. 1.58 Crores to the bank. Thus on this ground the plaintiff lacks prima facie case. 06 crores on 31.03.2012, the amount which the defendant needed to pay to the Government department, financial institutes to get NOCs. It is also evident from the letter of financial institution showing that the defendant, owner of Hotel Royal Residency owing Rs. 1.58 Crores to the bank. Thus on this ground the plaintiff lacks prima facie case. He is not prima facie shown to fulfill his part of the agreement and is not likely to suffer any loss for the advance of Rs. 06 out of 100 advanced which he can seek back in case he is unable to pay the amount to the defendant. He cannot as such be granted relief sought in the application for grant of interim injunction, on this count." 6. It is beaten law of the land that in a suit for specific performance of contract no ad interim relief can be granted when damages can be ascertained and paid. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgments of the apex Court reported in Bal Krishna v. Bhagwan Das, 2008 AIR SCW 2467 and Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. v. S. L. Vaswani, 2010 AIR SCW 628 (Paragraph 16) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a suit for specific performance of contract no ad interim can be granted. 7. Secondly, admittedly, in the present case, the value is fixed, and if at all plaintiff succeeds in the suit, he can be properly compensated. The trial Court has specifically held that the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the agreement and he is not likely to suffer any irreparable loss and that the defendant can be asked to make the repayment of the amounts already received by him together with compensation. 8. It appears that the trial Court while holding that the plaintiff, appellant herein, has failed to carve out a prima facie case, could have rejected the application for grant of ad interim relief, but the Court, invoking the inherent power in terms of Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, made some directions contained in the impugned order at running pages 12 & 13 of the impugned order. It is apt to reproduce those directions herein, which read as under: "1. The plaintiff shall make advance payment of Rs. 06.00 Crores to the defendant not beyond 5th of May, 2012. 2. It is apt to reproduce those directions herein, which read as under: "1. The plaintiff shall make advance payment of Rs. 06.00 Crores to the defendant not beyond 5th of May, 2012. 2. After the defendant receives the payment, he will arrange NOCs till 30.05.2012 3. The balance amount shall be deposited in this Court till 15th June 2012 which shall be subject to the orders of this Court. The order of status quo shall remain in force till 05.05.2012 and on fulfillment of the condition No. 1 as above by the plaintiff till 30.05.2012 or pending disposal of the suit whichever is earlier. On failure of the plaintiff to fulfill the condition No. 1 as aforementioned, the status-quo shall be deemed to have been vacated. On fulfillment of condition No. 1 and non fulfillment of condition No. 2, the injunction shall be again deemed to have been vacated after 30.05.2012. In case the defendant is unable to arrange the NOCs till 30.05.2012 after the plaintiff having fulfilled the Condition No. 1, he will be bound to return the amount advanced to him by the plaintiff along with interest and the damages subject to the determination of the main suit, for which he shall file an undertaking within five days from today...." 9. While going through the said directions aforementioned, one comes to the irresistible conclusion that these directions are in favour of the plaintiff, appellant herein. It is also seen that the defendant, respondent herein, is not aggrieved of these directions at all; therefore, he has chosen not to question that part of the impugned order. 10. It is appropriate to record herein that a discretionary order cannot be interfered with unless it is patently illegal and abuse of process of law. While going through the pleadings of the parties and reliefs sought for in the suit, the trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and passed the orders which were warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In the aforementioned backdrop, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal, being hopeless, is dismissed along with CMP. Interim directions shall stand vacated. The trial Court is at liberty to reframe the schedule. 11. In the aforementioned backdrop, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal, being hopeless, is dismissed along with CMP. Interim directions shall stand vacated. The trial Court is at liberty to reframe the schedule. Registry is directed to remit the record forthwith along with a copy of this order to the trial Court.