JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal is as under : On 20/05/2021, oral agreement took place between the parties in presence of Dinesh Agrawal Broker and one Rajesh Bhuibhar. The plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.51,000.00 by way of earnest amount to the defendants and it was agreed that, the defendants will execute the sale deed within four months. All the material terms and conditions, which are usually agreed upon in any sale transaction, such as rate, amount of earnest money, period of sale deed, expenses for stamp duty and registration fees to be incurred by whom, T.D.S. to be deducted, relevant documents to be handed over to the plaintiffs etc., have been agreed between the parties and have been duly pleaded by the plaintiff. 3. The defendant further agreed to handover the copy of tax receipts, copy of release deed, Namuna -D and other documents relating to the said property before the agreed date of sale-deed. On 01/07/2021, defendants handed over the copy of release deed, executed by sisters of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and assured to supply the remaining documents in short time. On 02/07/2021, plaintiff demanded copy of Namuna - D and other documents from the defendants. But the defendants informed that, they have applied for mutation in view of the release deed and the same will be received by them shortly and that they will supply the same to the plaintiff in short time. 4. On 26/07/2021, plaintiff published paper notice inviting objections, to the proposed sale deed from public at large, with the oral consent of defendants. On 01/08/2021, the plaintiff again requested the defendants to supply the copies of namuna - D and other documents. But, instead of supplying the same, the defendants gave an evasive reply. The defendants did not take any prompt objection to the above mentioned public notice and did not take any action against the plaintiff. On 09/08/2021, as the defendants were intending to create third party interest, the plaintiff published public notice in Dainik Bhaskar informing the public regarding agreement between plaintiff and defendants. On 12/08/2021, objection was published by the defendants to the above mentioned public notice. Therefore, on 25/08/2021, the plaintiff published written explanation in newspaper to the above objection published by the defendants. On 12/08/2021, objection was published by the defendants to the above mentioned public notice. Therefore, on 25/08/2021, the plaintiff published written explanation in newspaper to the above objection published by the defendants. Furthermore on 14/09/2021, plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants through advocate demanding documents, i.e., PAN Card and other documents so as to enable the plaintiff to deposit T.D.S. as required by Sec. 194IA of Income Tax Act, 1961, and deposit stamp duty, registration fees. On 17/09/2021, plaintiff transferred a huge amount of Rs.12,10,200.00 to agent Rupal Printers, for depositing the above amounts. On 18/09/2021, plaintiff purchased three demand drafts of Rs.53,90,200.00 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, on 20/09/2021, plaintiff was present at the Office of Sub Registrar, Akola along with three demand drafts amounting to Rs.53,90,200.00 each. However, the defendants did not turn up, did not supply copies of documents and did not cooperate with the plaintiff. 5. On 21/09/2021, the plaintiff again sent a legal notice to the defendants thereby again requesting them to supply, copies of the PAN Card and other documents and also, to remain present on 27/09/2021 for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On 23/09/2021, belatedly, the defendants gave reply to the notice. On 27/09/2021, the plaintiff attended the office of Sub Registrar along with the broker and above three demand drafts. However, the defendant did not turn up, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract, possession and injunction against the defendants, bearing Special Civil Suit No. 21/2022, in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola. 6. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application below Exh.5, restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives etc. or any other person acting on their behalf from transferring, alienating, selling or creating third party right, title, interest in the suit property or transferring its possession and dealing with the same in any manner whatsoever till the decision of this suit. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola by passing the impugned order below Exh.5 dtd. 09/11/2022, rejected the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 09/11/2022, rejecting the application below Exh.5, the appellant filed the present appeal. 8. It is the contention of the appellant that the Trial Court grossly erred in rejecting application below Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff. 09/11/2022, rejected the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 09/11/2022, rejecting the application below Exh.5, the appellant filed the present appeal. 8. It is the contention of the appellant that the Trial Court grossly erred in rejecting application below Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court ought to have fully allowed the application below Exh.5 by passing an order of temporary injunction as prayed by the appellant. The Trial Court ought to have seen that, if according to the defendants there was not any oral agreement between the parties or that the public notice dtd. 25/08/2021 published by the plaintiff would have been false, then the defendants would not have waited for a single day either for taking any action against the plaintiff or for publishing any explanation in the news paper. 9. Learned Counsel for appellant relied on following citation: 1) Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Vs. Baldev Dass, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488 . 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the Trial Court and stated that the Trial Court had properly taken into account the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on record and passed an appropriate order, hence the present appeal liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned Counsel for respondents relied on following citation: 1) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP Limited and another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 410 . 12. I have heard both the parties at length. Parties agreed to hear the matter finally at the stage of admission. In view thereof, matter heard finally. It is the contention of the applicant - plaintiff that there was oral agreement and he has paid an amount of Rs.51,000.00 in presence of broker and one witness. It is his contention that expenses for registration including stamp duty agreed to be borne by plaintiff and defendant equally. It was also agreed that daughters of defendant No.1, who are sisters of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were agreed to execute release deed in favour of defendants. Plaintiff issued public notice dtd. 09/08/2021, informing the public regarding the agreement. The defendant gave reply to the notice through their advocate dtd. 23/09/2021. It was also agreed that daughters of defendant No.1, who are sisters of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were agreed to execute release deed in favour of defendants. Plaintiff issued public notice dtd. 09/08/2021, informing the public regarding the agreement. The defendant gave reply to the notice through their advocate dtd. 23/09/2021. The plaintiff had published two public notices i.e. on 25/07/2021 and 09/08/2021 claiming therein that defendants have entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property and informing the public not to enter into any transaction. 13. It is the contention of the defendant that no consent of defendants was taken for publication of notice of the suit property. It is alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff intended to pressurize defendants that was the sole purpose and object to create cloud over the marketable title of the suit property. With an ulterior motive spread rumours. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as he was interested to purchase the suit property on 17/09/2021, he had transferred an amount of Rs.12,10,200.00 to Rupal Printers, Akola for the purpose of depositing the amount of T.D.S. to facilitate payment of stamp duty. However, defendant failed to supply copy of Pan Card. It is his contention that he had attended the Sub Registrar's office on 18/09/2021 along with Demand Draft. All these acts are unilateral and there is not a single document or any over act on the part of defendant showing his consent to sale the property to the plaintiff. 14. My attention is also drawn by the Counsel for the defendant to the public notice, wherein, the notice was published under the name of the Advocate. There is no mention who is the client of the said advocate and on whose instructions such notice is given. So far as, relinquishment deed is concerned, the plaintiff is claiming that as copies of relinquishment deed are handed over that supports that there was an agreement to sale the property. However, my attention is drawn to the copies of relinquishment deed. The said relinquishment deed is signed by the broker as a witness and there is no name below the signature of first witness. The said witness Dinesh Agrawal is the broker alleged by the plaintiff to the oral agreement. This defendant on noticing the public notice dtd. However, my attention is drawn to the copies of relinquishment deed. The said relinquishment deed is signed by the broker as a witness and there is no name below the signature of first witness. The said witness Dinesh Agrawal is the broker alleged by the plaintiff to the oral agreement. This defendant on noticing the public notice dtd. 09/08/2021, published his objection/explanation to the said notice on 12/08/2021 itself and denied any agreement in respect of the suit property to anybody. The plaintiff issued legal notice on 14/09/2021 through Advocate Lohiya and asked defendant to attend office of Sub Registrar on 20/09/2021. 15. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 20/09/2021, he remained present at the office of Sub Registrar. Another legal notice came to be issued on 21/09/2021, by that the defendants were again asked to remain present on 27/09/2021. Thereafter, the defendant issued legal notice cum reply to the plaintiff vide notice dtd. 23/09/2021 and it is made clear that there is no reason for the plaintiff to attend the office of Sub Registrar on 27/09/2021, as alleged. On perusal of this factual aspect prima facie when there was explanation to the public notice published by the defendant, the plaintiff started making all attempt to create the evidence of readiness and willingness. However, in absence of any prima facie, concluded contract of these acts of plaintiff is of no use. Only on the basis of copies of relinquishment deed in the hands of plaintiff, one cannot arrive at a conclusion that there was an agreement as discussed earlier. The alleged broker was one of the witness to the relinquishment deed and therefore, having a copy in possession of plaintiff was not difficult. 16. The learned Counsel for applicant - plaintiff relied on Maharwal Khewaji Trust (supra), however fact involved in the matter before the Apex Court, was that, the suit was filed for recovery of possession, the suit property along with application for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating the suit property and from putting up any construction thereon. The Trial Court granted injunction. The First Appellate Court vacated order holding that alienation if made will be subject to the law of lispendens. The revision filed against that order came to be dismissed by the High Court. The Trial Court granted injunction. The First Appellate Court vacated order holding that alienation if made will be subject to the law of lispendens. The revision filed against that order came to be dismissed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Appellate Court as well as High Court were not justified to permit alienation of the suit property or change the nature of the suit property. Here, the plaintiff is claiming specific performance of oral contract, however, in the facts and circumstances, there is no material to establish that there was any concluded contract between the parties. On the contrary, the facts on record prima facie shows that there are unilateral attempts made by the plaintiff to foist a contract on the defendant. 17. Learned Counsel for the respondent - defendant relied on Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held as under. : 15. Chapter VII, Sec. 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides for grant of preventive relief. Sec. 37 provides that temporary injunction in a suit shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. The grant of relief in a suit for specific performance is itself a discretionary remedy. A plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance will therefore have to establish a strong primafacie case on basis of undisputed facts. The conduct of the plaintiff will also be a very relevant consideration for purposes of injunction. The discretion at this stage has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily." 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court also relied on Cardinal Principles for grant of temporary injunction considered in Dalpat Kumar Vs. Pralhad Singh, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 . < WXY>"5...Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that noninterference 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. 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."</ WXY> 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there are doubts as to existence of concluded contract and there is delay in instituting the suit onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate that the parties were ad idem qua, their obligation/concluded contract. Plaintiff failed to place on record, material to prima facie show that there was any concluded contract between the parties. Act of taking out demand draft or putting amount for tax deducted at source in the account of somebody's account specifically when there was specific denial by explanation by the defendant that there is no such contract between the parties, definitely there is no case made out for grant of injunction. The defendants have not shown any intention to enter into an agreement to sale suit property. Unilateral attempts of plaintiff will not assist the plaintiff for grant of relief of temporary injunction. 20. The learned Trial Court rightly appreciated that unless defendants have shown to have acted dishonestly to refuse the specific performance of contract, no injunction order can be issued against them. There is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. As such, the order passed by learned Trial Court is perfectly justified and needs no interference. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.