JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiffs Gurcharan Singh Saini and his wife Manpreet Kaur Saini have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 19.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. 2. Plaintiffs/petitioners have filed suit against defendants/respondents for permanent injunction alleging that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs and received 10% of the sale consideration. The defendants threatened to alienate the suit property to third person by returning the money of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. Temporary injunction to the same effect till final decision of the suit was also claimed. 3. Defendants resisted the suit and the application and controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that there was no concluded contract between the parties. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon vide order dated 8.6.2010, Annexure P/8 allowed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 19.4.2011 and thereby plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs because there was concluded agreement between the parties although the written agreement was not signed by the defendants. It was emphasized that plaintiffs have already paid 10% of the sale consideration to the defendants. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the defendants/respondents contended that there was no concluded agreement between the parties. It was also contended that in the alternative, if there was any concluded agreement, then plaintiffs could sue for specific performance thereof and could not sue for permanent injunction only. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the written agreement has not concluded between the parties. Prima facie it also cannot be said that there was any oral concluded contract between the parties. Consequently, the plaintiffs have no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. 9. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the written agreement has not concluded between the parties. Prima facie it also cannot be said that there was any oral concluded contract between the parties. Consequently, the plaintiffs have no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. 9. Even if the plea of the plaintiffs is taken at face value that there was concluded contract between the parties, in that event suit for permanent injunction alone is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have to sue for specific performance of the alleged agreement. For this added reason also, the plaintiffs are not entitled to temporary injunction. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Temporary injunction has been rightly declined to the plaintiffs by the lower appellate court. Impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit. ---------0.B.S.0------------