JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.10107/2015 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. By order dated 12.02.2016, the learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s application I.A.No.1, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Hence this appeal. 2. The plaintiff initiated a suit for mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from executing compromise deed or confirmation deed or settlement deed or any other deed in favour of 3rd party in respect of the suit schedule properties during the registered agreements of sale remain in force. According to the plaintiff, the defendants executed four agreements of sale on 03.08.2012 and also a GPA. The defendants undertook to sell the said properties in his favour, and by executing the registered power of attorney, he transferred the possession also. The agreements of sale are also registered. On the same day there came into existence a joint development agreement also. Since the plaintiff learnt that the defendants were trying to create third party interest violating the terms of the agreement, the GPA and the joint development agreement, he filed the suit and also made an application for temporary injunction. 3. The defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff should have filed a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands. He also entered into number of transactions with many persons based on the agreements of sale, GPA and Joint Development agreement and therefore he is not entitled to equitable relief of injunction. 4. The trial judge dismissed the application for injunction having regard to the fact that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for specific performance; a mere suit for injunction is not maintainable. It is held by the trial court that the plaintiff has filed number of suits against many persons; and it appears that the plaintiff has misused the agreements of sale and the GPA. These circumstances disentitle the plaintiff to claim equitable relief of injunction. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has examined the case only from the angle of not instituting a suit for specific performance; this is a mistake committed, in that, the suit for specific performance could not have been filed until survey was conducted. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has examined the case only from the angle of not instituting a suit for specific performance; this is a mistake committed, in that, the suit for specific performance could not have been filed until survey was conducted. The agreements of sale and the GPA executed by the defendants are registered instruments. The defendants have received huge sums of money from the plaintiff. GPA is coupled with interest and therefore the plaintiff has every right to seek injunctive decree against the defendants to protect his interest. He argues that the trial court should have examined the entire case from this angle. His further argument is that the trial court, by not giving findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury the - three essential ingredients to be discussed, has not applied its mind and thus failed to exercise discretion properly. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that the trial court has rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction noticing that the plaintiff has not availed effective remedy for specific performance. According to him suit is hit under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The plaintiff has no right to institute a suit merely based on agreement of sale and GPA. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and according to him the suit is filed in respect of some other survey number lands though they are not subject matter of the suit. He has also executed sale deed in favour of many persons even though he has not become the absolute owner of suit properties. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have perused the materials before me and also the impugned order. The plaintiff’s case rests on agreement of sale, a GPA and also a joint development agreement said to have been executed by the defendants. From the nature of the relief that the plaintiff has sought, it can be said that a question as to maintainability of the suit arises. The plaintiff who states to have paid huge sums to the defendants towards sale consideration shows no inclination to enforce the agreements. Only reason the plaintiff gives for not instituting a suit for specific performance is that the defendants have not got the lands surveyed. The plaintiff who states to have paid huge sums to the defendants towards sale consideration shows no inclination to enforce the agreements. Only reason the plaintiff gives for not instituting a suit for specific performance is that the defendants have not got the lands surveyed. But the plaintiff also states that the defendants tried to alienate the property. This could have been sensed by the plaintiff that the defendants’ conduct amounted to breach of their obligation under the contract. Clinging on to a plea that his interest over the suit property is involved as GPA being irrevocable, does not give any right just seek an injunctive relief. It is true that this court appointed a commissioner to survey the land and this report is also available. This report in my opinion does not benefit the plaintiff or improves his case. It is alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff has also executed several deed in favour of number of persons on the basis of agreement, GPA and also the joint development agreement. He has filed number of suits against many persons. All these transactions show that plaintiff’s conduct is unfair. He states defendants have no right to enter into any transactions with others as his interest is involved in the suit property; at the same time he should have realized that his hands are also tied. He cannot transact with others detrimental to the interest of the true owners. Thus looked, the plaintiff has no right to seek injunction. The trial court has rightly denied injunction. When the suit appears to be not maintainable, there is no need to give findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience and relative hardship. It can be very well said that when the suit is not maintainable, no prima facie case exists. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Discretion is properly exercised. Hence appeal is dismissed.