JUDGMENT K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - The plaintiff-appellant in this appeal calls in question the order dated 01.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal in I.A. No.53 of 2014 arising out of C.S. No.86 of 2014, thereby dismissing an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 C.P.C. 2. The brief description of facts, relevant for proper adjudication of this case are as follows : The appellant as plaintiff filed C.S. No.86 of 2014, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal seeking a decree for specific performance of agreement for sale executed on 10.08.2000 by one Dinesh Chandra Pattanaik (the original defendant), through his Power of Attorney Holder, namely Swedesh Ranjan Pattnaik, in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land to any other person except in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended in the plaint that as per the terms of said agreement, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Power of Attorney of the defendant on the date of execution of the agreement. Accordingly, the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff and she developed the same and made it fit to be used as homestead. To the misfortune of the plaintiff, the Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant expired on 02.02.2006. However, the plaintiff after reclamation of the suit land had approached the defendant to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance consideration amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to which the defendant turned a deaf ear. Hence, the suit has been filed. As the defendant attempted to alienate the suit property during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.53 of 2014 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C, with a prayer to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit property to any person other than the plaintiff and also not to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendant filed his written statement along with show cause assailing the maintainability of the suit. It is further contended that the plaintiff had never possessed the suit land. There existed neither any agreement of sale between the plaintiff and Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant, nor was there any part performance of the contract, as alleged. The defendant filed his written statement along with show cause assailing the maintainability of the suit. It is further contended that the plaintiff had never possessed the suit land. There existed neither any agreement of sale between the plaintiff and Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant, nor was there any part performance of the contract, as alleged. The so-called unregistered agreement for sale of the year, 2005 was not legally enforceable in Court of law. The defendant also contended that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. The defendant also denied other contentions made in the plaint as well as in the I.A. 3. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, learned Civil Judge came to hold that there is no material on record to show that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. He further observed that alienation, if takes place during pendency of the suit would be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. As such, the plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss, if any interim order of injunction is not granted. He, accordingly, dismissed the I.A. as not maintainable vide his order dated 01.11.2014. 4. Assailing the same, this appeal has been filed. Be it stated here that due to the death of the respondent, Dinesh Chandra Pattanaik, during pendency of the appeal, his legal heirs (the present respondents) have been substituted and arrayed as respondents. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land pursuant to the agreement for sale. Unless interim order of injunction is granted, the defendants will succeed in alienating their suit land, which would eventually result in eviction of the plaintiff therefrom. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff has already paid a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh on the date of execution of the agreement for sale, as part payment of the consideration amount of Rs.30.50 lakh. In addition to the above, the plaintiff has reclaimed the suit land and made it fit to be utilized as homestead, by investing huge amount. Learned Civil Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the same. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Mr. Mohapatra relies upon AIR 1993 SC 276 (Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Learned Civil Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the same. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Mr. Mohapatra relies upon AIR 1993 SC 276 (Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahallad Singh and others) in support of his case. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the defendants/respondents, per contra, supported the impugned order and submitted that the suit as laid down is not maintainable. The alleged agreement for sale was executed on 10.08.2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2014, which is barred by limitation. Further, the alleged agreement for sale pursuant to which the plaintiff claims to be in possession is unregistered one. As such, the same is not legally enforceable in Court of law. Further, the agreement for sale does not create any interest or charge in favour of the plaintiff on the suit property. It may, at best, clothe the plaintiff with a right to execute a sale deed in respect of the land in question, ilf he succeeds in the suit. Before execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff has no legal right to claim the equitable relief of injunction. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon AIR 1989 Orissa 154 (Lachaman Nepak Vs. Badfankayalu Shama) and Vol. 64 (1987) CLT 211 (Baman Panda Vs. District Collector). 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that the defendants-respondents had filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and the purported deed of agreement for sale being unregistered one, cannot be enforced in Court of law. The said petition was dismissed by learned Civil Judge. Assailing the said order, the defendants have filed CRP No.38 of 2014 in this Court, which is pending for adjudication Hence, I am not inclined to go into the question of maintainability of the suit at this stage. 8. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, filed a copy of the impugned agreement for sale dated 10.08.2005, which is taken on record On perusal of the said agreement, it appears that the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff for reclamation. 8. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, filed a copy of the impugned agreement for sale dated 10.08.2005, which is taken on record On perusal of the said agreement, it appears that the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff for reclamation. There is no other material on record to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendants in their written statement as well as in their objection to the petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC have categorically stated that neither any such agreement was executed between the parties nor was there any occasion to deliver possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the suit land was, in fact, delivered to him pursuant to the agreement and she has reclaimed it by spending huge amount. On the other hand, the defendants produced the record of right and rent receipts in respect of the suit land which stood in the name of their father. As such, it is very difficult at this stage to infer, from the materials available on record, that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. Further, learned Civil Judge scrutinising the materials on record has come to the finding that there is no material to show that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. As such, I am not inclined, at this stage, to delve further into the issue as to who is in possession over the suit land, as it would affect the case of either party to the suit. 9. Admittedly, the defendants are owners of the suit land. They would put to more hardship and/or inconvenience in comparison to the plaintiff, if an order of injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, as the defendants would be prevented from dealing with their property independently. Further, any alienation of the suit land, that may take place during pendency of the suit, would be governed under the principles of lis pendens. 10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she has paid a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh to the Power of Attorney, namely, Swadesh Ranjan Pattnaik at the time of execution of the agreement. Further, any alienation of the suit land, that may take place during pendency of the suit, would be governed under the principles of lis pendens. 10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she has paid a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh to the Power of Attorney, namely, Swadesh Ranjan Pattnaik at the time of execution of the agreement. She has also invested a huge amount in reclamation of the suit land and to make it fit for use as homestead. Thus, loss that would occur to the plaintiff, in the event an order of injunction is not granted in her favour, cannot be treated to be irreparable as it can be compensated in terms of money. There is no need for an elaborate discussion of the case law cited by learned Counsel for the parties as the ratio decided in those cases are settled principles of law to be kept in mind while dealing with a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 11. On cumulative assessment of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal. 12. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.