ORDER 1. This is a Misc. Appeal filed under Order 43 rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. against order dated 25.6.2019 whereby learned 20th Additional District Judge has dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under: (i) The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of sale-deeds dated 27.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 as void, permanent injunction and recovery of sale-consideration. (ii) The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act. It purchased the land admeasuring 26160 Sq.ft. of Survey No. 196/2 situated at Village Bicholi, District Indore. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed a building in the name of "Rituraj Business Centre". The plaintiff through its former Director - Kush Garg executed a sale-agreement with respondent No. 2 for sale of 10 Flats (G-1 and 201 to 209) for a total saleconsideration of Rs. 2,71,68,980/-. Thereafter, separate 10 sale deeds were executed between them. According to the plaintiff, respondent/defendant No. 2 issued three cheques amounting to Rs. 23,41,000/- and transferred Rs. 30,00,000/- through RTGS, thus, total amount of Rs. 53,41,000/- was paid and gave a cheque for the remaining amount. According to the plaintiff, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,18,27,980/- towards the sale consideration and amount of 30,00,000/- towards Registry charges are still unpaid by respondent/defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has reserved its right to claim Rs. 70,430/- towards TDS. According to the plaintiff, after execution of the aforesaid sale-deeds, respondent/defendant No. 2 has not paid the entire sale consideration, therefore, the sale-deeds are liable to be declared as void or the defendants are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,18,27,980/-. Thus the plaintiff filed the civil suit seeking the relief of declaration of sale-deeds dated 27.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 as void, permanent injunction and recovery of sale-consideration. Since the defendants are developer and may sell all the ten Flats to the third person, therefore, the plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. (iii) The defendants appeared and filed the reply to the application denying the averments made in the plaint. However, the defendants have admitted that the cheques for the balance amount were not presented by the plaintiff company due to non-completion entire work in ten Flats. However, the defendants have admitted that the cheques for the balance amount were not presented by the plaintiff company due to non-completion entire work in ten Flats. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Court below vide impugned order dated 25.6.2019 has rejected the application for temporary injunction, hence the present appeal before this Court. 3. I have heard Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants at length and perused the material available on record. 4. At present, the plaintiff is only seeking the relief of temporary injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained to alienating the ten Flats because the entire sale consideration has admittedly not been passed on to the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration of all the sale-deeds as void for want of full sale-consideration, but as an alternative relief, the plaintiff is also seeking the relief of refund of balance amount of Rs. 2,18,27,980/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- towards Registry charges. Therefore, the plaintiff is interested in securing its amount from the defendants and apprehending that if the defendants are permitted to sell the Flats, then third party right would be created and the plaintiff would not be in a position to recover the aforesaid amount. 5. Shri Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the interest of the plaintiff is secured under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. As on today, the defendants are the registered owners of the all the ten Flats, therefore, they cannot be restrained to alienate the property. This is nothing but a money suit and the money can be recovered, if the plaintiffs succeeds in the suit. 6. In my considered opinion, learned Court below has wrongly rejected the application for temporary injunction in toto. The plaintiff is having prima facie case in its favour because more than 70% of the total sale consideration has not been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and if the defendants are permitted to sell the Flats in question, the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is having prima facie case in its favour because more than 70% of the total sale consideration has not been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and if the defendants are permitted to sell the Flats in question, the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendants are developers, hence their interest is also liable to be protected, if they are restrained to sell the Flats, then in further, there would be possibility of diminishing the quality, strength and value of the property. Hence, balance between the parties is liable to be maintained. 7. Resultantly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 25.6.2019 is set aside and application for temporary injunction is allowed with the following directions : (i) In case, the defendants sell the 10 Flats in question, then they shall keep the amount of Rs. 2,18,27,980/- (Two Crores Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty) in a separate Bank Account in any nationalised bank in the form of FDR. They shall submit an undertaking before the trial Court that they shall not use the amount of Rs. 2,18,27,980/- for any other purpose except for payment to the plaintiff subject to final outcome in the civil suit. They shall furnish the entire details of the said Bank Account/FDR before the trial Court; (ii) In case of sale of any of the Flats in question, the defendants shall disclose the fact of pendency of the present suit in the sale-deed/s and the said sale-deed/s shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit. 8. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.