Cases Referred : A. R. Madana Gopal v M/s. Ramnath Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (3) ALT (SC) 11 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v KS Infraspace LLP Limited, AIR 2020 SC 307 Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117 Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156 Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545 Gunwanthbhai Mulchand Shah v Anton Elis Farel, 2006 AIR SC 1556 K. Ravi Prasad Reddy v G. Giridhar, 2022 LawSuit (AP) 55 Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot v Baldev Dass, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1261 Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan V. Mrs. S.Rajalakshmi, AIR 2011 SC 3234 Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v Davarasetty Manmadha Rao, SA No.1282 of 2008, 2011 (6) ALT 505 R. Lakshmikantham v Devaraji, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1366 Smt. Chand Rani v Smt. Kamal Rani, AIR 1993 SC 1742 Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased) through Lrs v V. Kushagr Ansal (successor in interest of erstwhile Defendant No.1 Mrs. Suraj Kumari), AIR 2019 SC 1280 Vega Venkateswara Rao v Venkatarama Rao, AIR 1998 AP 6 Wander Ltd. v Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 Advocate Appeared : For the Appellant : Mr. G. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate JUDGEMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.11.2021 in I.A. No.258 of 2021 in O.S. No.27 of 2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court–cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit viz. OS No.27 of 2021 for specific performance of an ‘Agreement for Sale’/‘Agreement to Sell’/‘Agreement of Sale’ (as variously described in the papers annexed to this appeal) dated 06.03.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) entered into between the appellants no.1 and 2 and the respondent with regard to a piece of land. 3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit viz. OS No.27 of 2021 for specific performance of an ‘Agreement for Sale’/‘Agreement to Sell’/‘Agreement of Sale’ (as variously described in the papers annexed to this appeal) dated 06.03.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) entered into between the appellants no.1 and 2 and the respondent with regard to a piece of land. The Agreement indicates that the parties would perform their part of the obligation(s) as per the terms therein and the cutoff date was fixed as 16.11.2006 indicating the consequences which would follow in the event the respondent did not perform his part of the contract as also for the appellants no.1 and 2 if they did not perform their part of the obligations. 4. In the suit (supra), the respondent filed an application (IA No.258 of 2021) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), seeking a temporary injunction restraining the appellants, their men and agents from alienating the petition schedule property shown as ‘B’ Schedule in favour of third persons, pending the disposal of the suit. The Court below, after hearing, allowed the IA and passed an order granting temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of third persons, pending the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit was an abuse of the process of Court and ought to have been summarily rejected on the sole ground of delay, laches and limitation. It was contended that as per the terms of the Agreement, the exercise had to attain finality latest by 16.11.2006 and if the same could not be acted upon, depending on the default/non-performance of the respective party, the other side would face consequences, as already agreed upon vide the Agreement. Thus, it was submitted that after 16.11.2006, even if the appellants no.1 and 2 had failed to perform their obligation(s) under the Agreement, the only remedy available to the respondent was to move for an appropriate relief seeking recovery of INR 23,00,000/-as was clearly stipulated therein i.e., under the Agreement itself. Thus, it was submitted that after 16.11.2006, even if the appellants no.1 and 2 had failed to perform their obligation(s) under the Agreement, the only remedy available to the respondent was to move for an appropriate relief seeking recovery of INR 23,00,000/-as was clearly stipulated therein i.e., under the Agreement itself. Learned counsel submitted that the obligation on the part of appellants no.1 and 2 as per the Agreement, was to get measurement of the schedule property, which was got done and rectification of the deed as it revealed errors relating to the description of the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that the Agreement mandated that if by 16.11.2006, the respondent did not pay the entire balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered, the advance amount of INR 11,50,000/-paid by the respondent to the appellants no.1 and 2 would stand forfeited and in the alternative, if there was nonperformance by appellants no.1 and 2 in getting the land measured and also getting a rectification deed, respondent was entitled to recovery of double the security amount deposited by him i.e., INR 23,00,000/-from the appellants no.1 and 2. Learned counsel submitted that a fresh deed of sale was got registered from the original land owner; however, the same was in favour of appellants no.2 and 3 for the reason that the appellant no.1 was a busy person and, most importantly, based on that correct sale deed, neither did the respondent approach the appellants for execution of deed of transfer in his favour nor offered to pay the balance remaining amount, till 16.11.2006 or even prior to the legal notice sent by him for the first time on 09.04.2021. However, it was contended that the fact that the second sale deed was got executed in favour of the appellants no.2 and 3 on 11.09.2006 itself indicates that the land was properly measured and demarcated as the sale deed discloses the boundaries, which could not have been done without proper, actual measurement and demarcation on the ground. However, it was contended that the fact that the second sale deed was got executed in favour of the appellants no.2 and 3 on 11.09.2006 itself indicates that the land was properly measured and demarcated as the sale deed discloses the boundaries, which could not have been done without proper, actual measurement and demarcation on the ground. Learned counsel submitted that because the land is still in the possession of the appellants no.2 and 3 and there has been increase in the land rate, the respondent, who had given up his claim, as he could not arrange the remaining amount of over INR 33,00,000/-at the relevant point in time, all of a sudden, has become greedy and is trying to misuse the process of Court. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v KS Infraspace LLP Limited, AIR 2020 SC 307 , the relevant being at paragraphs no.15, 16, 19-22 and 24. It was contended that the Court below, on an erroneous presumption, that time was not the essence of the contract and that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and could be considered only at the time of final adjudication, to be decided in a full-fledged trial based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties, had allowed the IA in question. Thus, it was contended that once the Agreement specified 16.11.2006 as the date for the entire exercise culminating in registration of the sale deed in favour of the respondent by the appellants no.1 and 2, which was agreed to by the parties themselves and upon failure, the consequence against the appellants no.1 and 2 was that they would have to return double the amount deposited i.e., INR Rs.23,00,000/-and due to non-performance on the part of the respondent, the consequence was forfeiture of INR 11,50,000/-, being the advance deposited by him, the appellants no.1 and 2 forfeiting the said amount, also proves that the respondent accepted the position. Thus, it was submitted that at best, after 16.11.2006, the only claim for which the respondent could have approached the Court was with regard to recovery of INR 23,00,000/-in the event the appellants no.1 and 2 refused to pay the said amount, which has also not been done within the time stipulated. Thus, it was submitted that at best, after 16.11.2006, the only claim for which the respondent could have approached the Court was with regard to recovery of INR 23,00,000/-in the event the appellants no.1 and 2 refused to pay the said amount, which has also not been done within the time stipulated. It was submitted that the suit is only by way of taking a chance and to get over the statutory legal bar of moving the Court within time under the Limitation Act, 1963 and unbelievably the plea that respondent soon before filing of the suit had come to know that there was a sale deed executed for the same land in favour of appellants no.2 and 3 and that they were contemplating to alienate the same cannot be accepted as nobody, after paying INR 11,50,000/-would sleep over the matter for about fifteen years. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the stand taken by the appellants is incorrect. It was submitted that two conditions were stipulated under the Agreement on the appellants no.1 and 2 and then only was the obligation on the part of the respondent to pay the balance amount to get the land in question transferred in his favour. Thus, it was contended that when the appellants no.1 and 2 failed to discharge their onus, the time-limit would commence only thereafter and till date, appellants no.1 and 2 not having discharged their onus, there is no question of any limitation. Learned counsel submitted that neither was the land actually measured or demarcated, nor there exists a deed of rectification, as was specified in the Agreement. It was contended that even otherwise, appellants no.1 and 2 never informed the respondent that they got the land measured and demarcated and that there was a correct sale deed giving proper description of the land in question and that they were ready to transfer the said land based on such sale deed in favour of appellants no.2 and 3, to the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has rightly allowed the petition granting injunction preventing the appellants from alienating the property so as not to frustrate the relief claimed in the suit itself. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has rightly allowed the petition granting injunction preventing the appellants from alienating the property so as not to frustrate the relief claimed in the suit itself. Learned counsel submitted that vide the amendment brought in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) with effect from 01.10.2018 in Section 10, a contract is required to be enforced by the Court, which is mandatory, and prior to that it was in the discretionary realm of the Court. Learned counsel relied upon the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CMA No.43 of 2021 dated 25.01.2022 in K. Ravi Prasad Reddy v G. Giridhar, 2022 LawSuit (AP) 55, reliance being placed on paragraphs no.27-32, for the proposition that relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, cannot be denied on the ground of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and it is a discretion to be exercised by the Court below. He also relied upon another decision in Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v Davarasetty Manmadha Rao, SA No.1282 of 2008, 2011 (6) ALT 505 (S.B.), passed by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the proposition as to whether time is of the essence in a contract for specific performance, the relevant portion being at paragraphs no.10-11, 15 and 17. Further reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in R. Lakshmikantham v Devaraji, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1366, the relevant paragraphs being no.9-10 for the same proposition that time being the essence of the contract in question cannot be the sole ground to reject the relief. Similarly, reliance was also placed on the decision in A. R. Madana Gopal v M/s. Ramnath Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (3) ALT (SC) 11 (D.B.), as also Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot v Baldev Dass, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1261, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed, which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party which may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, by way of reply, submitted that the amendment to Section 10 of the Act, does not help the case of the respondent since it is not in mandatory terms that specific performance of a contract has to be enforced by the Court, as it itself mentions that it is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section 16, particularly Section 16(c), of the Act, it was submitted that specific performance of contract cannot be enforced by a person who fails to prove that he is ready and willing to perform the essential purpose of the contract which has to be other than the terms of performance of which has been prevented and waived by the defendant. It was submitted that after 16.11.2006, till the first Legal Notice sent on 09.04.2021, there has been no communication, much less, desire communicated by the respondent showing his willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. Thus, learned counsel contended that even in law, the suit itself being totally frivolous, the grant of injunction in favour of the respondent is absolutely untenable and requires interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Smt. Chand Rani v Smt. Kamal Rani, AIR 1993 SC 1742 , the relevant being at paragraphs no.18, 24-25 and 28, that even if time is not the essence of the contract, the Court may infer that it has to be performed in a reasonable time from the express terms of the contract. Similar reliance was also placed on Vega Venkateswara Rao v Venkatarama Rao, AIR 1998 AP 6 , the relevant being paragraph no.20, that while seeking performance of reciprocal promise by the opposite party, the plaintiff is to specifically plead and prove that he has performed/has been ready and willing to perform the promise as per the terms agreed. However, it was submitted that in the instant case, the same has not been done. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan V. Mrs. However, it was submitted that in the instant case, the same has not been done. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan V. Mrs. S.Rajalakshmi, AIR 2011 SC 3234 , the relevant being paragraph no.25, that the reality arising from economic change cannot continue to be ignored in deciding cases relating to specific performance, as a steep increase in prices is a circumstance which makes it inequitable to grant the relief of specific performance, where the purchaser does not take steps to complete the sale within the agreed period and the vendor has not been responsible for any delay or non-performance and further, that a purchaser can no longer take shelter under the principle that time is not of essence in performance of contracts relating to immovable property, to cover his delays, laches, breaches and ‘non-readiness’ and that precedents from an era, when high inflation was unknown, holding that time is not of essence of the contract in regard to immovable properties, may no longer apply, not because the principle laid down therein is unsound or erroneous but the circumstances that existed when the said principle was evolved no longer exists. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased) through Lrs v V. Kushagr Ansal (successor in interest of erstwhile Defendant No.1 Mrs. Suraj Kumari), AIR 2019 SC 1280 , the relevant being at paragraphs no.10-12 was pressed into service, that when a specific date was fixed for performance of the agreement i.e. execution of the sale deed; as per Entry 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, when a date is fixed for performance of the contract, the period of limitation is three years from such date. It was submitted that the factual matrix in Urvashi Aggarwal (supra) was similar to the facts herein, and in that case it was held that merely because the defendants were pursuing the application filed for permission before the L&DO (Land and Development Office), it cannot be said that the date fixed for performance of agreement stood extended and further, it has been held that even if time is not the essence of contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of the contract within a reasonable time, and reasonable time should be determined by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, including the express terms of the contract and the nature of the property. Learned counsel submitted that in the said case, the Court had noted that silence maintained by the plaintiffs for about 12 years amounted to abandonment of the agreement and the finding recorded in this regard by the trial court therein was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Countering the afore-noted submissions, learned counsel for respondent submitted that time is not the essence of contract. In support of his version, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gunwanthbhai Mulchand Shah v Anton Elis Farel, 2006 AIR SC 1556, wherein it was held that the issue of limitation should have been postponed by the trial court for consideration along with the other issues arising in the suit after trial, the relevant being paragraphs no.5, 7-8 and 14. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants by way of reply, submitted that K. Ravi Prasad Reddy (supra), at paragraph no.33 has quoted the decision in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look towards the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless its conduct was free from blame. 11. Similarly, in Pydi Ramana (supra), at paragraph no.3, the facts of the case have been noted with regard to repeated demands made by the plaintiff therein to the defendant therein pursuant to the agreement of sale, whereas, in the present case, the delay is 15 years in issuing the very first legal notice and thus, the ratio of the said case would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was submitted that in R. Lakshmikantham (supra), the agreement of sale was dated 22.09.2002 and in December, 2002, letters were sent by the plaintiff therein calling upon the defendant therein that he had not discharged his obligation under the agreement to sell, and further, at paragraph no.10, it has been held that so long as the suit for specific performance is filed within the period of limitation, delay cannot be put against the plaintiff, whereas, in the present case, the suit has been filed hopelessly beyond the period of limitation i.e., after 15 years. 12. 12. Shorn of unnecessary verbiage, the issue is whether the trial Court, in the facts and circumstance hereinabove indicated, ought to have allowed the IA under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. We think not and our reasons are detailed in the succeeding paragraphs. 13. For ready reference, Sections 10, 16 and 20 of the Act are extracted hereinunder: “10. Specific performance in respect of contracts – The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16. xxx 16. Personal bars to relief – Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person – (a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under section 20: or (b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or (c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation – For the purposes of clause (c), - (i) Where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction. xxx 20. Substituted performance of contract – (1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), and, except as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, where the contract is broken due to non-performance of promise by any party, the party who suffers by such breach shall have the option of substituted performance through a third party or by his own agency, and, recover the expenses and other costs actually incurred, spent or suffered by him, from the party committing such breach. (2) No substituted performance of contract under subsection (1) shall be undertaken unless the party who suffers such breach has given a notice in writing of not less than thirty days, to the party in breach calling upon him to perform the contract within such time as specified in the notice, and on his refusal or failure to do so, he may get the same performed by a third party or by his own agency: Provided that the party who suffers such breach shall not be entitled to recover the expenses and costs under sub-section (1) unless he has got the contract performed through a third party or by his own agency. (3) Where the party suffering breach of contract has got the contract performed through a third party or by his own agency after giving notice under sub-section (1), he shall not be entitled to claim relief of specific performance against the party in breach. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the party who has suffered breach of contract from claiming compensation from the party in breach.” 14. Section 10 of the Act relates to specific performance in respect of contracts. As such, the specific performance of contracts shall be enforced by the Court subject to the provisions contained in Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act. 15. Explanation (ii) to Section 16(c) clearly lays down that specific performance of contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him according to its true construction. In the matter at hand, from 06.03.2006, no material, leave alone any reliable material, even to indicate that the respondent/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract i.e., by paying the remaining consideration amount has been produced as per the own stand of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit via the averments made therein. In the matter at hand, from 06.03.2006, no material, leave alone any reliable material, even to indicate that the respondent/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract i.e., by paying the remaining consideration amount has been produced as per the own stand of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit via the averments made therein. As far as the Limitation Act, 1963 is concerned, the initiation of a suit for specific performance after 15 years clearly, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be said to be a reasonable period, more so, as there is absolutely no explanation, leave alone an acceptable explanation, for the respondent/plaintiff not having taken any steps from expiry of the deadline in the Agreement for Sale i.e., 16.11.2006 till 09.04.2021, when the first legal notice was sent by the respondent/plaintiff addressed to the appellants no.1 and 2. 16. Entry 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly provides for three years’ period of limitation from the date fixed for the performance of the contract. In the instant case, that would be 16.11.2006, whereas the suit was filed only in 2021. For better appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 54. For specific performance of a contract Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. 17. In Wander Ltd. v Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “9. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated “...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated “...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the ‘balance of convenience’ lies.” The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted. xxx 13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately. 14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [ (1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156 ]: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” (emphasis supplied) 18. It would be well to recall, albeit briefly, the governing principles holding the field. In Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court exposited thus: “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 , it was stated: “4… In other words, the court, on exercise of the power of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it. 5. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it. 5. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.” (emphasis supplied) 20. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) has been reiterated subsequently, including by a 3-Judge Bench in Metro Marins v Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd., (2004) 7 SCC 478 . Likewise, Wander Ltd. (supra) and Dalpat Kumar (supra) have been reiterated, inter alia, and as recently as in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. (supra). 21. We bear the aforesaid in mind before traversing further. Few basic facts may be noticed. As per the terms of the Agreement, the respondent was required to pay INR 11,200/- per cent, which came to more than INR 46,00,000/- and out of which, INR 11,51,000/- was paid as advance and the total amount was to be paid on or before 16.11.2006. As per the Agreement, the remaining balance amount had to be paid and registered sale deed executed by 16.11.2006. It was further stipulated that appellants no.1 and 2, who had executed the Agreement, being the owners of the property, would obtain rectification Deed relating to the Survey number and also get the land measured. Moreover, the consequence of failure to perform their part of obligation by either of the parties was also mentioned viz. if the respondent failed to pay the remaining consideration amount by 16.11.2006, the agreement would stand cancelled and the amount shall not be returned and in the event, the appellants no.1 and 2 refused to receive the remaining sale consideration and execute registered sale deed, it was stipulated that the advance amount of INR 11,51,000/-along with penalty of like amount totalling INR 23,00,000/- would be paid to the respondent. Thus, it is obvious that both sides had to comply with their respective obligations, and complete the exercise latest by 16.11.2006. The terms afore-stated are clear and unambiguous. The respondent was required to put to notice the appellants no.1 and 2 apropos default of their obligations. Thus, it is obvious that both sides had to comply with their respective obligations, and complete the exercise latest by 16.11.2006. The terms afore-stated are clear and unambiguous. The respondent was required to put to notice the appellants no.1 and 2 apropos default of their obligations. Moreover, the respondent had to communicate his readiness to pay the remaining due sale consideration amount within the time stipulated or raise a claim for return of his deposited INR 11,51,000/-along with the penalty amount, again, within the time stipulated, which, admittedly, he did not. We are of the considered view that the onus lay on the respondent to take steps in the matter as he had already parted with a sum of INR 11,51,000/-. He (the respondent/plaintiff) would have been well-advised to approach Court within a reasonable time, starting from 16.11.2006, if there was resistance by the appellants no.1 and 2 in discharging the obligations cast on them by the Agreement. It is not denied that the first legal notice was sent to the appellants no.1 and 2 for taking the Agreement to its logical conclusion, only on 09.04.2021. At this juncture i.e., at a prima facie stage, it is somewhat difficult for this Court to accept, as a matter of fact, that for 15 long years, the respondent would prefer to keep quiet and not take recourse to any remedies, as available in law. The plea that the respondent had been asking/beseeching/approaching the appellants no.1 and 2 repeatedly to act, unfortunately, cannot come to the respondent’s aid in the absence of any cogent material in this respect. Needless to state, the Court cannot go by the ipse dixit of any party. 22. Another relevant aspect of the matter is that whether the grant of temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the Schedule property in favour of third persons pending disposal of the suit is sustainable. The Schedule property was never the corpus of the Agreement for the reason that the description of the suit property in the Agreement dated 06.03.2006 and the schedule property (which is the property for the Sale Deed dated 11.09.2006) in favour of the appellants no.2 and 3 are ex facie different as the boundaries of the properties, one described in the Agreement and the other mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 11.09.2006 differ. Thus, the properties so mentioned are different and the Schedule property has no direct linkage to the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants no.1 and 2 mainly, albeit with appellant no.3 also arrayed as a defendant therein. Had the land/property description, with regard to survey number as well as boundaries been the same in both the Agreement dated 06.03.2006 and the Sale Deed dated 11.09.2006, the prayer seeking injunction would have had some justification, but the same being different, the Trial Court ought not to have granted the injunction. The oral contention that despite the description of the land being different, but actually the same relate to and meant the land which is the subject matter of the Sale Deed dated 11.09.2006, cannot be accepted only on an oral plea, more so, for the reason that the said plea is being raised 15 years after the cause of action arose. In this view, we are afraid, the respondent’s stand cannot be countenanced. 23. The first and foremost requirement for the respondent/plaintiff was to make out a prima facie case. The fact now is that the suit property is no longer owned by the appellants no.1 and 2, but by the appellants no.2 and 3 and appellant no.3 is not a party to the Agreement. For the very same reason, the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the appellants/defendants, coupled with the fact that the properties described in the Agreement and the Sale Deed dated 11.09.2006 vary in description and survey numbers. Qua irreparable loss, our view is that the respondent/plaintiff, if he were to ultimately succeed, can always be adequately compensated monetarily. The respondent/plaintiff, thus, is unable to meet the threshold for grant of an interim injunction. 24. That apart, the delay of 15 years alone, again to emphasize, prima facie, disentitles the respondent from obtaining the relief granted in the IA. As such, the need to examine other grounds canvassed by the appellants, at this juncture, is obviated. 25. Accordingly, a case for interference is made out by the appellants. On an overall circumspection, we are inclined to allow the appeal on the limited point supra. The learned trial Judge in seisin of the matter shall expedite the hearing of the suit. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.