JUDGMENT Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Appellants/original Plaintiffs challenged order dated 15 November 2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, whereby Appellants' Notice of Motion is dismissed, wherein the prayer was pending the Suit restrain the Defendant from selling transferring, alienating or creating third party rights in suit flat No. 506 on 5th Floor in building “Omkar Alta Monte”, Malad (East), Mumbai, total area admeasuring 3098 sq.ft. An ad-interim relief was also sought of similar nature. The learned Judge refused to grant any ad-interim relief. Therefore, Appeal from Order No.1176/2013 was filed. This Court after hearing both the sides, by a reasoned order, on 12 November 2013, directed the learned trial Judge to dispose of the Notice of Motion expeditiously. The impugned order is the result of that. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the agreement and so also the receipt of amount of Rs.1,00,43,603 by the Respondent. The dispute is with regard to the actual carpet area-1549.94 sq.ft or 3097.69 sq.ft. The case of Plaintiff as alleged is that pursuant to the representation made, they agreed to purchase flat having 3097.69 sq.ft carpet area. The payment was accordingly made. The Respondent, however, denying the same in every aspect by saying that there was no such representation made with regard to the carpet area as claimed. The total area as per the agreement certainly 3098 sq.ft, but that was divided into two parts, covering carpet area (1549 sq. ft.) and other area like Niche, Duct and Slabs; Flower beds, elevational features, AHU as per the sanctioned plan, about 1547.75 sq.ft, for beneficial use of the flat. Admittedly, no further agreement as contemplated under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, 'MOFA Act”), entered into. The Plaintiff ultimately therefore filed the Suit in October 2013, by invoking the said provisions and sought direction/decree against the Defendants as recorded above. The Suit is, therefore, basically for specific performance of the agreement read with the reliefs as per the provisions of MOFA Act for the flat/property in question. 4. The provisions of MOFA Act, in my view, contemplates clear description of immovable property, price and the parties, so also is the requirement for any Suit for specific performance of property. The Suit is, therefore, basically for specific performance of the agreement read with the reliefs as per the provisions of MOFA Act for the flat/property in question. 4. The provisions of MOFA Act, in my view, contemplates clear description of immovable property, price and the parties, so also is the requirement for any Suit for specific performance of property. The facts and circumstances, as referred above, itself require the Court to consider these elements before granting a final and/or an interlocutory injunction/order as prayed. 5. There are correspondences on record to show apart from the averments so made in the plaint as well as in supporting affidavit to the Notice of Motion, the dispute/difference with regard to the actual carpet area arose. Both parties, therefore, have exchanged various letters to clarify their respective position. The Appellant/Plaintiff never accepted at any point of time that the carpet area agreed is only 1549.94 sq. ft. The case is that as promised it should be 3097.69. Such reduction of carpet area, though the agreement is same and so also the price, requires reconsideration, firstly from parties point of view and also from Court's point of view while passing the final order. Even if the Appellant/plaintiff able to demonstrate, which the Defendant definitely opposing, that there was certain representation and/or promises made and that it is a case of cheating, still the issue of granting specific performance of contract, on the basis of alleged contract is a difficult situation even for the Court in such Suit. The statutory provisions as sought to be contended though invoked in the background, the difficulty will be same for want of the clear description of property and the price, in view of above undisputed position on record. It will be difficult for the Court to grant any order against the developer to execute the alleged agreement when the terms and conditions itself are in dispute since beginning. 6. The MOFA Act contemplates clear position with regard to the description of immovable property and the prices and if other party refused to enter into the agreement and/or fail to perform part of the contract, in spite of willingness and readiness of the purchaser of the property, the Court may direct and/or compel the builder to execute the agreement, but not otherwise. This dispute, in my view, goes to the root of the matter, even for passing the ad-interim and/or interim order as prayed by the Appellant in the present matter. 7. The conduct is also relevant factor while passing such interim protection and/or interim relief. The correspondences/letters exchanged by and between the parties immediately after receipt of the amount as referred above shows that the parties were never agreed to go ahead with the same terms and conditions and/or to execute the final agreement as contemplated and/or as promised. The Appellants expressed willingness to purchase the property at the proportionate cost of the reduced area and request was made accordingly to finalise the agreement. The resistance was to make the payment of the full agreed amount i.e. Rs.4,87,44,000/- as that was as per the Appellant for the total carpet area of 3097.69 sq.ft. The discussion was on prior to February 2013 itself. Therefore, on 9 March 2013 a request was also made to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,43,692/- with 18% interest thereon. This itself shows that the Appellant in fact expressly elected not to proceed with the alleged agreement further. The Respondent also communicated immediately and indicated to refund the amount by deducting 10% amount i.e. 48,74,400/- and thereby specifically communicated in writing that the Appellant ceased to have any right or interest in the said flat and/or any part thereof and, therefore, they were entitled to sell the flat to other person. The deduction was opposed by letter dated 2.9.2013 and insisted for refund of full amount with 18% interest and also prayed for Rs.50 lacs damages. The request was also made to give flat on available rate by reducing the price as per the carpet area now available. This itself means the Appellant unable to express readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, based upon the original agreement between the parties. 8. The request was also made to give flat on available rate by reducing the price as per the carpet area now available. This itself means the Appellant unable to express readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, based upon the original agreement between the parties. 8. If both party agreed to reduce and/or accept respective modified terms and conditions, it is difficult for the Court to deny the same and/or the Court may pass appropriate order even by invoking the provisions of MOFA Act, but if there is a dispute in every aspect and basically carpet area itself, the Court, therefore, at this stage, just cannot overlook the conduct of the parties as well as the modified terms and conditions so sought to be placed and/or imposed upon by the Appellant. The changed terms and conditions, if are not agreeable to the parties, the submission and/or the relief based upon the original agreement, in the background, therefore, difficult for the Court to consider as a foundation to grant interim protection/relief as prayed. 9. The interpretation of draft allotment letter and/or draft agreement for sale and specially clauses 1(c), 4(d), 14(f) and 15 and other provisions and also the submission so made based upon the alleged promise, in view of above undisputed position and correspondences between the parties are also of no assistance to the Appellant to insist for interim protection. The election/option having once made of demanding the total amount with interest, the submission even if made to change the terms and conditions and the demand to make the payment on the basis of alleged reduced carpet area, this itself, in my view, disentitle the Appellant any interim relief of this nature, whereby prayer is to restrain the Defendants from creating third party right or interest in flat No.506, the carpet area of which itself is in dispute. 10. The learned trial Judge, therefore, considered the facts and circumstances and the documents so placed on record and right in coming to the conclusion that there is no concluded contract between the parties, the exact area of subject matter of transaction is in dispute and the Appellant/plaintiff was never ready and willingness to purchase the flat as agreed and in fact requested for fresh agreement and the reduction in the price of the flat in question. 11. 11. The case of treating and/or non-compliance of statutory provisions in the background, apart from discretionary relief which the Court may pass for and/or against the Appellant in such Suit which may, in a given case, if the Appellant able to prove, can be a case of compensation and/or damages. The Appellant, therefore, has not made out a case of balance of convenience and/or equity and/or irreparable loss or injury. 12. Therefore, considering the scope and power of Appellate Court to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court, for the reasons so recorded above, apart from the reason already recorded by the learned Judge while dismissing the Notice of Motion, no case made out for grant of injunction as prayed. There is no perversity and/or illegality apart from no prima facie case made out by the Appellant. 13. However, considering the above facts itself, the Suit is expedited and to be disposed of within nine months. 14. The Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed so also Civil Application No.1550/2013. There shall be no order as to costs.