JUDGEMENT 1. The present Appeal from Order has been filed by the appellants- original defendants being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 112/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge, Valsad dated 6.7.2012 on the grounds stated in the memo of the Appeal from Order. 2. Heard learned advocate Shri Adil Mirza for the appellants-original defendants. The facts narrated and discussed in the memo of the suit as well as the impugned order make it very clear that the transactions have taken place. The original plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the contract for which part payment has been made as stated in detail in the memo of the suit. The recitals in the agreement to sell require necessary mutual obligations like getting N.A. permission etc. and before the conditions could be complied with, further transaction took place as stated in detail. Such sale deeds in favour of the subsequent purchasers, including defendant No.2, has been executed in the year 2010 and in favour of defendant No. 3 in the year 2011. Learned advocate Shri Mirza submitted that the suit is filed after 27 years and therefore the present suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that there is a bar of limitation in filing the suit. He has also submitted that necessary and proper parties ought to have been joined. He has referred to the written statements and the stand taken as well as the order passed by the court below and tried to submit that the court below has not considered the aspect of delay and the fact that subsequent transactions have taken place and therefore the impugned order granting injunction could not have been issued in favour of the original plaintiffs. He therefore submitted that the present Appeal from Order may be allowed. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Sanjanwala appearing with learned advocate Shri Dilip Kanojiya has referred to the papers and tried to submit with regard to the terms and conditions, the conduct of the parties and receipts are also produced with regard to the part payment. He has also referred to the papers with regard to the revenue proceedings and submitted that though N.A. permission was required to be obtained by the original vendor, they have executed the document in favour of original defendants Nos. He has also referred to the papers with regard to the revenue proceedings and submitted that though N.A. permission was required to be obtained by the original vendor, they have executed the document in favour of original defendants Nos. 2 & 3 without getting necessary permission as per terms of the agreement with the respondents-original plaintiffs. He therefore submitted that on one hand though the land in question has been sold and has divested the interest, the proceedings for N.A. permission are pursued which would show that the subsequent transactions are only a camouflage to wriggle out from the commitment with the respondents-original plaintiffs. He submitted that in any case it shows the conduct that the amount has been pocketed from the plaintiffs, and after having received substantial amount, have failed to fulfill the commitment and has entered into transaction with others to get further amount for the same property. 4. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Appeal from Order can be entertained and it requires any interference with the impugned or not. As it transpires from the record which has been referred to by both the sides in detail as well as the discussion in the impugned order with regard to the funds, it is evident that the appellants-original defendants having entered into the agreement to sell with the original plaintiffs have further entered into transaction with regard to the same land in favour of other defendants, appellants Nos. 2 and 4. The recitals in the agreement to sell with the plaintiffs provide for mutual obligations. Thus, prima facie, having accepted the part payment towards the consideration, the appellants-original defendants have failed to fulfill the conditions like obtaining necessary N.A. permission etc. On the other hand, they have entered into subsequent transaction by sale in favour of original defendant No. 2 and further document in favour of defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Revenue proceedings for N.A. permission are still pending where the original vendors, the defendants herein, are pursuing the matter as owner of the land. This itself reflects about the conduct and it is in these circumstances the impugned order passed by the court below restraining the original defendants, the appellants herein, from entering into any further transactions by sale or transfer in any manner cannot be said to be erroneous. 5. This itself reflects about the conduct and it is in these circumstances the impugned order passed by the court below restraining the original defendants, the appellants herein, from entering into any further transactions by sale or transfer in any manner cannot be said to be erroneous. 5. In such a situation, the property is required to be maintained as it is to avoid any further complication or creation of rights of the third parties. Further, the subsequent transactions were with the knowledge of earlier transaction, that is, agreement to sell with the original plaintiffs is a matter which requires appreciation of evidence for the purpose of deciding the rights on the basis of the doctrine of lis pendens under the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the court below is erroneous or the court below has failed to appreciate and consider the relevant material which would call for any interference with the impugned order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has laid down guidelines with regard to the approach by the higher courts in such matters while deciding the issue at the appellate stage pending trial of the suit. It is well accepted that at that stage, the court has not to consider the detailed merits of the case since the evidence is not yet led. Therefore, till such issues are decided on the basis of the evidence, the well-accepted criteria for granting of injunction are required to be considered. Therefore, the court has to consider at the appellate stage whether the court below has failed to apply such criteria or whether it has failed to consider the relevant material or the provision of law. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a judgment in the case of Wander Ltd. And anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, has observed that normally the appellate court would not interfere with a discretionary order passed by the trial court on the basis of prima facie material even if a different view is possible. It has been observed that the provisions for grant of injunction/criteria are required to be considered and on the basis thereof the prima facie case and balance of convenience etc. area required to be considered. It has been observed that the provisions for grant of injunction/criteria are required to be considered and on the basis thereof the prima facie case and balance of convenience etc. area required to be considered. The same view has been expressed in a subsequent judgment in the case of Julien Educational Trust v. Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 379 . 8. Therefore, considering the aforesaid relevant facts as well as the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the scope of interference in the Appeal from Order, the Court is of the opinion that it does not call for any interference with the impugned order and the present Appeal from Order deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application would not survive and the same is disposed of.