JUDGMENT : 1. By this application, the appellants (original plaintiffs) are seeking injunction against respondents (original defendants), their agents, servants and all other persons claiming through or under them, restraining them from transferring, alienating, selling or leasing the suit property as mentioned in the judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2013 by learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in favour of anyone else during the pendency of the instant appeal. 2. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 herein being the owner of property bearing Nazul Plot No.1-2/98 and 1-2/99, Nazul Sheet No.99, original Layout Plots No.1 and 2 made out of lay out of field survey No.49, Village Umri, Taluka and District Akola admeasuring about 11511.048 Sq.Ft.(hereinafter referred to as the suit property), agreed to sale the suit property to the appellants/original plaintiffs as per the agreement for sale dated 13/09/2010. The appellants/original plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards part payment of consideration and remaining amount was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 09.03.2011. According to the appellants/original plaintiffs, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had obtained loan from respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank by mortgaging the suit property and also had agreed to repay loan amount and bring no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank before execution of sale deed. 3. According to the appellants/original plaintiffs they were and are ready and willing to pay and get the sale deed executed. Even they requested respondent No.1/ defendant No.1, his representative, and estate broker to get suit property measured and to bring no due certificate from the Bank, however, they failed to get suit property measured and also to bring no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant-2 Bank. On the contrary, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 informed about the cancellation of agreement as the balance consideration was not paid on 09.03.2011 and also proposed to refund earnest amount. Appellants/original plaintiffs accordingly, filed the suit. 4. The appellant’s/original plaintiff’s suit was resisted by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on the ground that the appellants/original plaintiffs were required to pay entire amount of consideration on or before 09.03.2011 as the time was essence of contract and since they had failed to make payment of balance consideration, he cancelled agreement in terms of Isar pavti. 4. The appellant’s/original plaintiff’s suit was resisted by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on the ground that the appellants/original plaintiffs were required to pay entire amount of consideration on or before 09.03.2011 as the time was essence of contract and since they had failed to make payment of balance consideration, he cancelled agreement in terms of Isar pavti. He also disputed the description of suit property as well as measurement of suit plot before execution of the sale deed and as also bringing of no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant No.2 before execution of registered sale deed. Since, the appellants/original plaintiffs had intentionally breached the essential conditions of the agreement, they are not entitled to claim equitable relief of specific performance of contract nor any other relief. 5. The learned trial judge, after hearing both the parties, was pleased to decree the suit partly and directed respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the appellants/original plaintiffs within three months from the date of the order with 6% per annum from the date of suit till actual realisation of the amount. That is how the said impugned judgment and order is challenged before me by way of present first appeal. 6. Mr. Shyam Dewani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/original plaintiffs, submits that the appellants/original plaintiffs have an excellent prima facie case to succeed in the matter. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the various observations and findings given by the learned trial judge and more particularly, invited my attention to paragraph numbers 16,19,21,23,27,42 and 48 of the impugned judgment and order. According to the learned counsel, no serious attempts were made by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 either to get the suit property measured or to furnish no due certificate from the respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank and in such circumstances, it was respondent No.1/defendant No.1, who committed the breach of agreement for sale. 7. The learned counsel then expressed apprehension that taking advantage of the pendency of the appeal, respondents may dispose of, alienate or transfer the suit property in favour of third person and then it will be difficult for the appellants/original plaintiffs to get the decree of specific performance of contract. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/original plaintiffs has placed reliance in Julien Educational Trust Vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors (2010)1 SCC 379 , Gaurishankar Vs. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/original plaintiffs has placed reliance in Julien Educational Trust Vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors (2010)1 SCC 379 , Gaurishankar Vs. Evershine Homes P.Ltd, [2009(2) Mh.L.J]259 and Maharwal Khewaji Trust (REGD) Vs. Baldev Dass (2004) 8 SCC 488 . 9. Mr. M.G.Sarda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions and submits that there was no communication from the side of appellants/original plaintiffs for almost two years and since they had failed to pay the balance consideration amount on or before 09.03.2011, the respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 was well within his right to cancel the agreement for sale. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial judge has rightly held that the appellants/original plaintiffs had failed to show their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and to substantiate the submission. 10. The learned counsel also invited my attention to paragraph No.35 of the impugned judgment and order. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/original plaintiffs have not been able to take out a case for temporary injunction till the decision of the appeal, there being no merit in the application, the same is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has placed his reliance upon B. Vijaya Bharathi V. P.Savitri and ors. 2017 AIR (SC)3934. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the contentions raised before me, in my considered view, the findings of the learned trial judge qua the contents of agreement for sale assume significance. For all purposes, I would like to go through the contents of agreement for sale, a copy of which is filed on record by the learned counsel for the appellants/original plaintiffs. 12. Before I look into the contents of the agreement for sale, I may point out that this Court in Gaurishankar Vs. Evershine Homes P.Ltd, (supra) has held that at the interlocutory stage, the test must be the satisfaction of the Court as to the purchaser’s readiness and willingness if the vendor were to honour or be made to honour his obligation. Evershine Homes P.Ltd, (supra) has held that at the interlocutory stage, the test must be the satisfaction of the Court as to the purchaser’s readiness and willingness if the vendor were to honour or be made to honour his obligation. The Court further held that the appellant/defendant No.1 committed breaches of the agreement and it cannot be accepted that the plaintiff's refusal to perform its obligation in the absence of defendant No.1 performing his obligation as a lack of readiness and willingness on the plaintiff’s part. 13. Quickly reverting back to the contents of agreement for sale, I notice that, admittedly, remaining consideration amount was required to be paid by the appellants/original plaintiffs on the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 09.03.2011. However, equally important conditions were that the vendor i.e. respondent No.1/defendant No.1 herein before execution of the sale deed was required to carry out measurement of the suit property and fix the boundary marks on the suit property and also repay the entire loan amount to the Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and would bring no due certificate. Thus, the obligation with which the vendor was charged was twofold. Firstly, before executing the sale deed, he was required to measure suit property and fix the boundary marks. Secondly, he was also required to clear off the entire loan amount taken by him from the Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and to furnish no due certificate from the said bank i.e. respondent No.2/defendant No.2. 14. The learned trial judge was very clear and categorical in his mind when he recorded that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 herein had failed to comply with the condition regarding measurement of suit property prior to the execution of sale deed i.e. 09.03.2011. Similarly, the learned trial judge also recorded findings that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had also failed to make serious attempt to settle the loan account with bank and thus had also failed to furnish no due certificate and thereby breached the suit agreement. Suffice to say, the learned trial judge manifestly gave the findings about the breaches of conditions of terms of agreement for sale at the hands of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 15. Suffice to say, the learned trial judge manifestly gave the findings about the breaches of conditions of terms of agreement for sale at the hands of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 15. Prima facie, reading of the contents of the agreement for sale and as also keeping in mind the findings of breaches on the part of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 by learned trial judge, it does not give much prescience to say that there were breaches on the part of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Needless to say that the contents of agreement for sale has to be read as a whole and cannot be read piecemeal. Mere condition of payment of remaining consideration amount cannot be singled-out particularly in the light of obligations imposed on the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 16. Having regard to the material on record, I am not with learned counsel for respondent No.1 at least, prima facie, to hold that no case has been made out for grant of interim relief. 17. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is one such case, where, an interim order is required to be passed. Having found prima facie case in favour of the appellant, I also make it clear that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss also lie in favour of the appellant and therefore, interim relief is required to be granted till the disposal of the appeal. 18. I have carefully, gone through the decision given in B. Vijaya Bharathi V.P.Savitri and ors (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and in my considered opinion the factual position obtaining therein is quite distinguishable vis-a-vis the case in hand. 19. Resultantly, I pass the following order: (i) The civil application is allowed. (ii) The respondents (original defendants), their agents, servants and all other persons claiming through or under them, are hereby restrained from transferring, alienating, selling or leasing the suit property forming part and parcel of the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2013 by learned 5th Jt.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in favour of anyone else during the pendency of the instant appeal. [iii] There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Civil application stands disposed of.