JUDGMENT: A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present application, the applicants-appellants-original plaintiffs, have prayed to stay the operation and implementation of the judgment and decree dated 08/07/2019 passed by learned 14th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 359 of 2015, by which, the suit filed by the present applicants-appellants-original plaintiffs came to be dismissed. The applicants-original plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell executed by the present defendant No. 1 and for declaration of sale deed dated 11/08/2015 executed by the present defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as null and void and prayed for further reliefs. 2. Learned Trial Court, after considering the documentary evidence and scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before the Court, dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree mainly on the ground that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers of Plot No. 5, Vinayak Leaf on the land bearing block No. 882, Nr. Chandan Cinema, Nr. Podar School and Presidency Resort, Bhimpura-Koyali Road, Sherkhi, Vadodara, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed property") and further held that the applicants-plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that deed of conveyance executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is a void document and further held that the plaintiffs had failed to show their readiness and willingness to perform the contractual obligations on their part and further held that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers of the disputed property. The matter was listed before the coordinate Bench of this Court for the first time on 14/10/2019. After hearing learned advocates appearing for the respective parties [since caveat was filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 4], Notice was issued in the First Appeal as well as in the present civil application. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various occasions, ultimately the appeal came to be admitted on 04/01/2022 by this Court, which is pending for final hearing. Learned advocate for the applicants-plaintiffs have produced documentary evidence by way of paper-book, which were produced and proved in the trial court. 3. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various occasions, ultimately the appeal came to be admitted on 04/01/2022 by this Court, which is pending for final hearing. Learned advocate for the applicants-plaintiffs have produced documentary evidence by way of paper-book, which were produced and proved in the trial court. 3. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing for the applicants-plaintiffs would submit that the suit came to be filed by the present applicants-plaintiffs in the year 2015 and along with the same, an application under Order 39 Rule (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed for interim relief, directing the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to maintain status quo and not to further transfer the property in question, which was denied by the learned Trial Court. The said decision was challenged by the present applicants-plaintiffs by filing an Appeal from Order under Order 43 of Code of Civil Procedure, being Appeal from Order No. 239 of 2017 along with Civil Application (for stay) No. 9676 of 2017. After hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge of this Court during the pendency of the Appeal from Order, all the defendants were directed to maintain status quo qua the suit property and further restrained the defendants from putting up any further construction and/or creating any third party rights in the suit property in any manner. This decision was challenged by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by way of filing Special Leave Petition No. 3075 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said Special Leave Petition filed at the instance of the defendants, came to be dismissed by oral order dated 12/02/2018. Simultaneously, Appeal from Order was ordered to be disposed of by directing learned Trial Court to decide the suit within a period of six months. He would submit that therefore, the stay remained in operation till the suit is dismissed. He is insisting for the same relief here on the various grounds. 3.1. Firstly, he has taken us through the Agreement to Sell executed by the present applicants-plaintiffs with defendant No. 1 on 04/05/2015, by which, the property was agreed to sell to the tune of Rs. 1,89,00,000/-, out of which, the applicants-plaintiffs had paid in all, an amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- between 17/11/2014 to 04/05/2015. 3.1. Firstly, he has taken us through the Agreement to Sell executed by the present applicants-plaintiffs with defendant No. 1 on 04/05/2015, by which, the property was agreed to sell to the tune of Rs. 1,89,00,000/-, out of which, the applicants-plaintiffs had paid in all, an amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- between 17/11/2014 to 04/05/2015. He would further submit that three sale deeds were executed on 04/05/2015, which were registered with the Registrar at Silvassa. He would further submit that it was agreed between the parties i.e. the applicants-plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 1 i.e. original owner of the property in question that remaining amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of executing agreement to sell (Banakhat) dated 04/05/2015. He would submit that several reminders were sent to the owner of the property to execute the sale deed, however, there was no response from defendant No. 1. 3.2. Since doubt was created about intention of defendant No. 1 for not executing the sale deed, the applicants-plaintiffs immediately filed Special Civil Suit No. 336 of 2015 against the defendant No. 1 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04/05/2015. However, when it came to the knowledge of the applicants-plaintiffs that the property in question was already sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 by registered sale deed on 11/08/2015, the suit in question was immediately filed on 08/09/2015 seeking various reliefs. 3.3. He would further submit that the applicants-plaintiffs are residents of Silvassa of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Union Territory. They never came to know about Public Notice dated 08/07/2015 issued at the instance of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 about their intention to purchase the property in question and therefore, objection was not raised against such transaction intended between defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 1 but that itself would not deprive the applicants-plaintiffs for getting reliefs as prayed for in the suit, which is pending for hearing at large by way of First Appeal. 3.4. He would further submit that it is an undisputed fact that the applicants-plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 1 but that itself would not deprive the applicants-plaintiffs for getting reliefs as prayed for in the suit, which is pending for hearing at large by way of First Appeal. 3.4. He would further submit that it is an undisputed fact that the applicants-plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- to defendant No. 1 and if the parties would be permitted to alter the land in any manner, it would create multiplicity of litigations and it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to execute a decree if passed in the First Appeal and therefore, balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicants-plaintiffs. He has also submitted that the description of the property in the Agreement to sell is different than description in the Public Notice issued by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants-plaintiffs have knowledge about the property, which is sought to be purchased by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 from defendant No. 1. He would submit that Public Notice was issued in daily newspaper on 08/07/2015 whereas defendant No. 1 issued Notice on 29/07/2015, which prima facie, indicates that defendant No. 1 had already decided to sell the property to defendant Nos. 2 to 4. This creates doubt about the intention of all the defendants to dupe the rights of the present applicants-plaintiffs, who had paid huge amount within a span of about six months. 3.5 He would further submit that it is an undisputed fact that the applicants-plaintiffs had agreed to purchase the property to the tune of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- whereas the property sold by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 at the tune of Rs. 1,21,00,000/-, which is much lower than the value offered by the applicants-plaintiffs and therefore, it cannot be said that it is a bonafide transaction between the parties. He therefore, would submit that the application may be allowed. 4. Though served, respondent No. 1-original owner of the property, has chosen not to appear before this Court. 5. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Shashvata Shukla, learned advocate appearing for defendant No. 5 have strongly opposed this application. He would submit that defendant Nos. Though served, respondent No. 1-original owner of the property, has chosen not to appear before this Court. 5. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Shashvata Shukla, learned advocate appearing for defendant No. 5 have strongly opposed this application. He would submit that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers of the property in question since they have purchased the property after proper verification of the public records. He would further submit that "Title Clearance Certificate" was also issued by the advocate since there was no objection raised by any party including the present applicants-plaintiffs in response to the Public Notice issued on 08/07/2015. He would submit that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have purchased the property by registered sale deed on 11/08/2015 i.e. after waiting for a period of more than one month after issuing a Public Notice. Public Notice was issued in the daily newspaper namely "Divya Bhaskar", which is having wide circulation in the city of Vadodara, where the disputed property is situated. He would submit that excuse on the part of the applicants-plaintiffs that they are residents of Silvassa and were not aware about the Public Notice issued in the daily newspaper namely "Divya Bhaskar" circulated in the city of Vadodara, where the property is located, cannot be the ground to stay the whole process of developing the land in question. 5.1. It was further submitted that it was not in dispute that original defendant No. 1 issued a legal notice on 29/07/2015 to the present applicants-plaintiffs declaring that they have breached condition no. 2 of Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) by not paying remaining amount of Rs. 1,36,50,000/- and has further declared that in view of the above breach of condition No. 2, agreement to sell dated 04/05/2015 stands cancelled. However, the applicants had never responded to the said Notice and ultimately, the property was sold in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 by registered sale deed on 11/08/2015. 5.2. He has also taken us through the observations made by the learned trial court in reasoning part of the judgment, by which, the suit has been dismissed and tried to support the case. 5.3. 2 to 4 by registered sale deed on 11/08/2015. 5.2. He has also taken us through the observations made by the learned trial court in reasoning part of the judgment, by which, the suit has been dismissed and tried to support the case. 5.3. As far as description of the property in the Agreement to sell entered into between defendant No. 1 and the applicants-plaintiffs and in Public Notice dated 08/07/2015, Block number of the property and the area is clearly mentioned and therefore, this submission has no barring. He would submit that defendant No. 2 to 4 have already paid huge amount of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- to defendant No. 1-original owner of the property and have also entered into agreement for development of the property with respondent No. 5 and if interim relief is granted, the entire project would be stalled during the pendency of the appeal particularly, when there is no interim relief after the dismissal of the suit i.e. from 08/07/2019. He therefore, would submit that this application may be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is true that by an agreement to sell of questioned property, the applicants-plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 have decided to transfer the property in the name of the present applicants-plaintiffs. It is an undisputed fact that the property is located at Vadodara, however, the same was registered at the office of Registrar of Silvassa and not at Vadodara. When a person intents to buy some immovable property, he will examine the revenue records with regard to title of the property including various documents of the Government. In the present case, before entering into a sale transaction, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as a precaution, issued a Public Notice in the daily newspaper namely "Divya Bhaskar", which is having wide circulation in the city of Vadodara, where the property is located. If the applicants-plaintiffs were vigilant enough, they could have raised objection in view of agreement to sell executed between them and defendant No. 1. The submission made on behalf of the applicants-plaintiffs cannot be accepted that the said Public Notice has gone out of his sight as they are residents of Silvassa. 7. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 before executing the sale deed also obtained "Title Clearance Certificate" about the property in question. The submission made on behalf of the applicants-plaintiffs cannot be accepted that the said Public Notice has gone out of his sight as they are residents of Silvassa. 7. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 before executing the sale deed also obtained "Title Clearance Certificate" about the property in question. However, after having followed the basic need of getting property purchased, necessary process was undertaken by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 before purchasing the property in question. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondents, who have paid full price of the property way back in the year 2015, cannot be restrained from developing the property further. But to strike the balance and considering the fact that there was a valid Agreement to sell between the applicants and defendant No. 1, some interim relief was granted by this Court, which remained in operation till the year 2019 and to protect the interest of the applicants-plaintiffs if they succeed in the appeal, we pass the following order: "Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are hereby permitted to develop the property in question. Any further transaction in whatsoever nature, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall specifically disclose that such transaction or change of title and/or handing over the possession of the property or part of the possession of the property, would be subject to final outcome of the present First Appeal i.e. First Appeal No. 4934 of 2019. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 individually and Managing Director of respondent No. 5 i.e. Sawan Engineers Private Limited, who is going to develop the property, shall be held liable for breach of this order, if above fact is not mentioned in any type of transaction with regard to the land or developed property like shops, offices, residential area or any construction made upon the disputed property. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall produce the details about further transaction with regard to the land or construction made thereupon periodically i.e. every four months, by way of fling appropriate affidavit before the registry of this Court. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 individually and Managing Director of respondent No. 5 shall file "Undertaking" before this Court about the directions referred hereinabove and adhere to the same during the pendency of the first appeal. The appeal is hereby expedited." 8. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 individually and Managing Director of respondent No. 5 shall file "Undertaking" before this Court about the directions referred hereinabove and adhere to the same during the pendency of the first appeal. The appeal is hereby expedited." 8. Registry is hereby directed to call for record and proceedings along with paper-book from the concerned Trial Court forthwith. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged.