ORDER/JUDGMENT – Heard through video conferencing. Shri A. K Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri PrateekMaheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri O. P. Solanki, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Nilesh Gupta with Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Arguments of the parties on IA No. 2572/2020 heard. 2. Availing the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 4-4-2016 and 19-3-2018, respondent No. 4 has filed this application for granting leave to alienate the suit property with suitable measures/conditions to secure the interests/rights of the plaintiffs/appellant. 3. Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that there was a property of Omkar Lal Rathore bearing Survey No. 65 and 66 total area 3.031 hectares situated in village Rangvasa, Tehsil and District Indore. Omkar Lal agreed to sell this property to the plaintiff/appellant for consideration of Rs. 34.11 lakhs. An agreement to sell was executed between both of them on 15-5-2006. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1 lakh by cheque and Rs. 6.5 lakhs in cash. The compliance date was settled as 2-11-2006. Before this date, on 11-10-2006, the children of Omkar Lal filed a Civil Suit No. 125A/06. The plaintiff knew about this civil suit, but he never tried to get the sale deed executed. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30-4-2007. After more than nine months, the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 79A/2015 for specific performance of contract on 4-2-2008. The learned trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 18-12-2015 with respect to the relief of specific performance of the contract. Challenging this judgment, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Before the filing of Suit No. 79A/2015 by the appellant, the land was purchased by Goyal Greeneries Pvt. Ltd., later known as M/s Patwari Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (R-3), and further sold to M/s Seven Star Properties Pvt. Ltd. (R-4) vide sale deed dated 5-6-2009. But they both were not made party to the Civil Suit No. 79A/2015. 5. In the present appeal, both R-3 and R-4 filed an application for intervention, and thereafter, the appellant applied to implead them as a party to the appeal which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 7-7-2017. But they both were not made party to the Civil Suit No. 79A/2015. 5. In the present appeal, both R-3 and R-4 filed an application for intervention, and thereafter, the appellant applied to implead them as a party to the appeal which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 7-7-2017. Hence, the R-3 and R-4 were added and were made a party to the present appeal. 6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that R-4 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land and has purchased it on payment of due consideration. He or his predecessor in title was not aware about pendency of the civil suit between Omkar Lal and the plaintiff/appellant. They were never impleaded as party to the civil suit or were intimated about the same nor were any relief sought against them. Therefore, judgment and decree passed in that suit is not binding upon them. Further, in view of the provisions of section 19(b) of The Specific Relief Act, the relief of specific performance as sought by the appellant cannot be granted. 7. It is further contended that the appeal has been admitted by this Court and would take a considerable time to be heard finally in the ordinary course of listing as per the present Listing Scheme in vogue. He is ready to argue the appeal finally at the stage of the motion hearing. However, due to the present COVID-19 situation, it is also not possible. The dispute is pending before the Court for the past 14 years and in the ordinary course, the appeal will ripe for final hearing after more than 15 years as presently the appeals of the year 2000 or before it are being listed for final hearing. The applicant has taken a loan of 326 lakhs from the Allahabad Bank by mortgaging the suit land. As the land could not be used/developed for years due to pendency of the litigation, he could not repay the same and is now facing difficulties as the amount has shot up. He has no other resources to repay the loan. There is an imminent threat to declare his account NPA and the bank may proceed to auction the land to recover the loan amount. This would not be beneficial for or in the interest of either of the parties to the present appeal. He has no other resources to repay the loan. There is an imminent threat to declare his account NPA and the bank may proceed to auction the land to recover the loan amount. This would not be beneficial for or in the interest of either of the parties to the present appeal. The applicant is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court to secure the interest of the appellant. Therefore, he may be permitted to alienate the suit land subject to the outcome of the present appeal. The conditions deemed fit, may be imposed by the Court. 8. The applicant/R-4 has placed reliance on Shubhlaxmi Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit vs. Sures @ Gopal, 2019(1) M.P.L.J. 223 , Ambalal Sarabhai vs. K. S. Infraspace LLP Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 410 , K. G. Arumnughan vs. K. A. Chinnappan, (2005) 2 SCC 793 , Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi, (2000) 6 SCC 420 , Balkrishna vs. Bhagwandas, (2008) 12 SCC 145 , Nanjappan vs. Ramaswamy, (2015) 14 SCC 341 and Janarthan Prasad vs. Ramdas, (2007) 15 SCC 174 . All these judgments state that “specific performance of contract” is a discretionary relief and not a matter of right. They also discuss the principles and the facts and circumstances to be considered to grant such relief. This Court is not deciding the appeal finally; therefore, all these judgments can only be considered for the limited purpose to determine the current issue. 9. The prayer is opposed by the appellant. It is submitted that this Court has granted ex parte ad interim stay on the alienation of the suit property on 4-4-2016 and made it absolute vide order dated 19-3-2018 in the presence of the parties. The applicant failed to show any subsequent occasion/event which necessitates alteration in the order. The application is vague as no purchaser is disclosed. The alienation will complicate the dispute and will create a multiplicity of the proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that the application be dismissed. 10. It is further averred that R-3 or R-4 were not made the party to the civil suit as the alienation was never intimated or disclosed before the plaintiff/ appellant. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff/appellant. 11. Therefore, it is prayed that the application be dismissed. 10. It is further averred that R-3 or R-4 were not made the party to the civil suit as the alienation was never intimated or disclosed before the plaintiff/ appellant. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff/appellant. 11. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the R-4 took me to para 9, 10 and 16 of the impugned judgment and para 11 of the statement of Omkar (DW-1) wherein the learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner was having intimation/knowledge of the filing of the civil suit by the children of Omkar Lal as well as the alienation of the property to the third party. 12. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, their claims to suit property, the evidence produced before the trial Court particularly in respect of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/appellant, the current status of the parties so also the suit land, relative hardship to be caused to the parties, the measures to secure the interests of the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and proper to allow the application. Therefore, without commenting or discussing the merits of the case in detail, the application is allowed. 13. The applicant R-4 is permitted to sell the suit land subject to the outcome of the appeal. The applicant shall duly convey the fact of the pendency of this appeal as well as the condition that the sale shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal to the purchaser. In case the appellant succeeds, the applicant shall be bound to revert back the land free from all encumbrances. He shall furnish full particular of the buyer(s) and the sale consideration and other relevant facts having an impact over the rights of the parties particularly the appellant, to the Court. Before alienation, he shall submit an undertaking before the Court expressing his consent to comply with the conditions imposed. 14. The IA No. 2572/2020 stands disposed off accordingly. 15. However, looking to the nature of the dispute, the parties shall be at liberty to file an application for out of turn final hearing of the appeal. 16. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.