JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as "the Trial Court") below application at Exhibit 144 in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2009, the appellants-original plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal from Order. 2. It is contended by the plaintiffs that they have filed Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2009 for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing revenue survey No. 15 paiki, Block No. 64, admeasuring 2541 square meter measured 0-98-03 and they have preferred interim application restraining defendant Nos. 11 to 18 from dealing with the suit land. It is contended that earlier, the order of status-quo was passed in respect of the defendant Nos. 1 to 10. It is contended that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land has been sold and transferred twice by defendant No. 7 and rest of the defendants and, therefore, the plaintiffs have preferred application below Exhibit 144 for interim injunction. The application has been rejected by the Trial Court. According to the plaintiffs, the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and if the interim injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs then the rights of the plaintiffs would be frustrated. According to them, when initially the order of status-quo was granted, the Trial Court ought to have issued the order of status-quo restraining the defendant Nos. 11 to 18 from selling, alienating and transferring the suit land in favour of any other persons. 3. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned counsel for Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Dhiraj Patel, learned counsel, who has appeared on caveat, for the respondents. 4. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned counsel for Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance on 26.04.2006 and during the pendency of the suit, the application at Exhibit 5 was decided by the Trial Court on 05.09.2018 and directed that the status-quo was to be maintained by both the sides till the final disposal of the suit. He has submitted that as the property in question was transferred pendente lite, the plaintiffs have joined the new defendants by way of filing the application. He has submitted that as the property in question was transferred pendente lite, the plaintiffs have joined the new defendants by way of filing the application. According to him, earlier the status-quo was granted, the Trial Court ought to have continued the status-quo till the final disposal of the suit and application at Exhibit 144 ought to have been granted. According to him, when earlier learned Trial Judge has passed the order of status-quo, the successor ought not to have interfered with that order because he has no authority to review the earlier order. According to him, the Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is applicable in the present case. While referring to the paper-book, he has submitted that an undivided share of the property can be sold by agreement to sell and part thereof can be decreed. He has submitted that if the status-quo is not granted, it will result in disposal of the suit at the threshold. He has submitted that when initially, there was order of status-quo, it binds not only the party to the suit, but it also binds to the third party also. He has submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application at Exhibit 144 and, therefore, this Court may interfere with the impugned order and quash and set aside the order. 5. Per contra, Mr. Dhiraj Patel, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the property is dealt with in the year 2006 and the suit has been filed in the year 2009 and when Exhibit 5 was moved in 2018 i.e. after nine years, the status-quo of the suit land has been passed. While referring to the paper-book, he has submitted that defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have sold their share to defendant No. 7 in the year 2008 and defendant No. 7 has sold it in the year 2009 to defendant Nos. 8 to 10 as well as defendant Nos. 8 to 10 have sold their share in the year 2009. He has submitted that there are conditions in agreement to sell which shows that it was not a sale but it is one kind of sharing of profit agreement. He has submitted that this is not a case of specific performance, but it is a case of sharing of profit. He has submitted that there are conditions in agreement to sell which shows that it was not a sale but it is one kind of sharing of profit agreement. He has submitted that this is not a case of specific performance, but it is a case of sharing of profit. While referring to the conditions of the agreement to sell, he has submitted that there is clause regarding payment of damages in agreement. While referring to the plaint as well as interim injunction application, Mr. Patel, learned counsel has submitted that there was no injunction sought for regarding the present construction. He has submitted that in previous application, there was no relief sought against the construction and now, in new application, the prayer against the construction has sought for. He has submitted that earlier order of status-quo was against defendant Nos. 1 to 10 and it was not applicable to defendant Nos. 11 to 18. He has submitted that before order of status-quo was passed, the suit land was already transferred. While referring to the report of the Court Commissioner of the suit property, he has submitted that there was no any construction when the panchnama was drawn by the Court Commissioner and yet the plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that there was construction of 33 huts. He has submitted that now, 300 workers are employed for construction, which is going on the land and necessary permission for such construction has obtained from the competent authority. He has submitted that no possession of the suit land was with the plaintiffs and no specific portion of the property was identified in favour of the plaintiffs. He has submitted that the Trial Court has already fixed the date for leading evidence in the proceedings which is going on and the Trial Court has not committed any error of law and facts in rejecting the application. He has prayed to dismiss the present appeal from order. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Asim Pandya, learned counsel has submitted that there is condition in the agreement to sell regarding purpose of contract and till 2012, there was no construction on the site and earlier there were huts. It is submitted that the suit land has been amended and in amended plaint, there is averment regarding restraining the defendants from carrying out the construction on the suit land. It is submitted that the suit land has been amended and in amended plaint, there is averment regarding restraining the defendants from carrying out the construction on the suit land. He has submitted that by passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has revised its earlier order which is not permissible in law. He has prayed to set aside the impugned order. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the paper book, it prima facie appears that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance and for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the new defendants have been added. The entire suit is based on the conditions of agreement to sell, which has been, incorporated in the plaint itself. On perusal of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, it appears that there is agreement to sell of 50% share of the suit land and the sale price has been fixed at Rs. 30,00,000/- out of which, Rs. 5,50,000/- has been paid. It also appears from the conditions of the agreement to sell that there are suits pending before the Courts regarding the same suit property and there was recital in agreement to sell that Rs. 25,00,000/- has to be tendered as and when the actual possession is to be given to the purchaser. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land at any point of time. It also reveals from the recital of the agreement to sell that if it is agreed that if there is sale of suit land then first Rs. 20,00,000/- has to be accounted for and, thereafter, out of 50% share of the profit has to be paid to purchaser and 50% to the seller. It is also mentioned therein that time for completion of the contract is six months. It is also one of the conditions that in case of failure in performance of the contract, then the damage has to be paid at the rate of 2% of the amount. From the agreement to sell, it appears that there is condition of payment of damages to the purchaser. It also appears that this agreement to sell is not registered one. 8. From the agreement to sell, it appears that there is condition of payment of damages to the purchaser. It also appears that this agreement to sell is not registered one. 8. It is pertinent to note that as per say of the plaintiffs, there were 30 huts in the suit land. But this fact is not supported by the report of the Court Commissioner. The report of the Court Commissioner shows that there is no construction on the suit land. It also appears from the order passed below Exhibit 5 that the Court did not find prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and has, ultimately, rejected the application at Exhibit 5. However, it was directed that the status-quo was to be maintained by the parties till the final disposal of the suit. One thing is certain that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land and there is recital of payment of damages to the plaintiffs. It also appears from the relief clause of the plaint that the plaintiffs themselves have asked alternative remedy for payment of damages with 2% interest. It also appears from the record that 50% share is not identified in the suit land. It also appears from the record that the defendants are in possession of the suit land and by obtaining certain permissions, they are carrying out the construction work. Under these circumstances, if the injunction is granted against the defendants then it would affect their legal rights of the property, whereas, the plaintiffs who are not in possession of the suit land, are claiming their rights only on the basis of the unregistered agreement to sell and he can be compassionated in terms of money and he will not be adversely affected, if injunction is not granted in their favour. It is pertinent to note that the essential ingredients of granting interim injunction are not in favour of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the Trial Court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The impugned order of the Trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. In view of the above, the present Appeal from Order is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of.