JUDGMENT A.V. SESHA SAI, J. - Plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Guntur District are the appellants in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. This appeal calls in question the order, dtd. 21/12/2022, passed by the said Court in I.A.No.613 of 2022. Appellants herein instituted the said suit against the respondents for the following reliefs: The linked image cannot be display ed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. V erify that the link points to the correct file and location. a) To pass Decree directing the Defendants for Specific Performance of Agreement/understanding arrived on 16/08/2018, by directing them to retransfer the Plaint schedule land, Ac.29.49 cents, situate in Kaza village, Mangalagiri Mandal, PedaKakani Sub Registry, Guntur District, in favour of the Plaintiffs. b) In case the Defendants failed to execute the document and to register the document/s, retransferring the Plaint schedule land, as prayed for, in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Hon'ble court may appoint an Officer of the court to execute such document/s, to retransfer the Plaint schedule land in favour of the Plaintiffs; c) To pass Decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants for a sum of Rs.10.00 crores as liquidated damages; d) Grant a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to return to the Plaintiffs the blank Cheques and blank Promissory Notes referred to in para 7 of the Plaint e) To grant costs of the suit; and f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary and proper and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". 3. In the said suit, plaintiffs-appellants herein filed the present I.A.No.613 of 2022 under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, seeking ad-interim/temporary injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents herein from alienating the plaint schedule properties in favour of others pending disposal of the suit. Resisting the said application, defendants-respondents filed counter. 4. During the course of enquiry, plaintiffs-appellants herein, in order to substantiate their case, filed Exs.A1 to A28 and the defendants did not file any documents and no oral evidence was adduced by the parties. 5. Resisting the said application, defendants-respondents filed counter. 4. During the course of enquiry, plaintiffs-appellants herein, in order to substantiate their case, filed Exs.A1 to A28 and the defendants did not file any documents and no oral evidence was adduced by the parties. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, vide the order impugned in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, dismissed I.A.No.613 of 2022. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. 6. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms.C.Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants herein, and Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents herein, apart from perusing the material available on record. 7. Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the order impugned is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; that the learned Judge grossly erred in not appreciating the material available on record in a proper perspective; that the bank transactions covered by Exs.A1 and A2-documents clearly go to show the nature of the said transactions and the existence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants; that, in the event of allowing the present application, the multiplication of proceedings can be avoided; that the reliefs, as regards the nature of transactions, would also come out during the course of trial; that all the three ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are in favour of the appellants, as such, the learned Judge ought to have granted injunction as prayed for. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellants herein, places reliance on the following judgments: 1. 2022 SCC Online AP 135. 2. (2020) 11 SCC 773 (paragraph Nos. 22 and 25) 3. (2012) 1 SCC 735 (paragraph Nos. 11, 12, 17 and 20) 4. (2004) 1 SCC 195 (paragraph No.26). 8. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellants herein, places reliance on the following judgments: 1. 2022 SCC Online AP 135. 2. (2020) 11 SCC 773 (paragraph Nos. 22 and 25) 3. (2012) 1 SCC 735 (paragraph Nos. 11, 12, 17 and 20) 4. (2004) 1 SCC 195 (paragraph No.26). 8. On the contrary, emphatically refuting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, maintains that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order impugned, as such, the questioned order is not amenable for any correction under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC; that as the plaintiffs-appellants miserably failed to show the existence of necessary ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in their favour; the learned Additional District Judge is perfectly justified in declining to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants; that the sale transactions that took place in favour of the respondents are out right sales but not in the manner pleaded by the plaintiffs and the recitals in the sale deeds would clearly disclose the same. 9. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, takes the support of the following judgments: 1. AIR 2023 SC 3637 (paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 15). 2. AIR 1975 SC 2202 . 3. AIR 1968 Kerala 213 (paragraph No.12). 4. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727. 10. In the above background, now the issues, which this Court is called upon to consider and answer, are as under: "1.Whether the order impugned is sustainable and tenable? and 2.Whether the questioned order warrants any interference of this Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC?". 11. The sine qua non/condition precedent for entitlement to the equitable relief of injunction is the establishment of existence of three necessary and indispensable ingredients, namely: 1) prima facie case, 2) balance of convenience and 3) irreparable loss/ in favour of the person applying for injunction. Unless a person applying for injunction is successful in showing prima facie case in his/her favour, such person is not entitled for this relief. The relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief and, for mere asking, the same cannot be granted. Unless a person applying for injunction is successful in showing prima facie case in his/her favour, such person is not entitled for this relief. The relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief and, for mere asking, the same cannot be granted. In the case on hand, the essence of the suit is that, with an understanding in terms of oral agreement to the effect that the subject property would be re-conveyed after clearing the loans advanced by the defendants, the registered sale deeds were executed in favour of the defendants and the defendants failed to adhere to the said understanding/oral agreement and the documents filed by the appellants-plaintiffs manifestly demonstrate the nature of the transactions and that the learned Judge did not record any finding as regards the existence or non-existence of the necessary ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 12. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that they purchased the suit schedule properties by way of registered documents by paying valuable sale considerations and, obviously, the defendants' case is total denial of the stand of the plaintiffs and that the production of any amount of documentary evidence, contrary to the recitals in the documents, cannot be given credence in view of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. 13. The suit schedule consists of as many as ten items and the defendants admittedly purchased the properties from the third parties to the suit and it is also an admitted reality that the vendors, who executed the subject sale deeds in favour of the defendants, though the plaintiffs claim them as their sister concerns, are not arrayed as parties to the present suit. Admittedly, the persons, who can speak about the nature of transactions, are not arrayed either as plaintiffs or defendants. Plaintiffs did not file any documents to prima facie show that they are the sister concerns of the first plaintiff. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that there exists prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. In the absence of the said contingency, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants herein. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that there exists prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. In the absence of the said contingency, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants herein. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants, that by adducing evidence during the trial, the realities would be proved by the plaintiffs, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be construed as existence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. In fact, the learned Judge, while declining to grant relief in favour of the plaintiffs, assigned valid, cogent and convincing reasons in the impugned order and this Court is not inclined to meddle with the well-articulated order passed by the learned Judge. However, having regard to the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is needless to observe that any further transactions, touching the subject properties, shall be subject to the outcome of the suit. 14. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that, in the absence of any counter-affidavit to the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of the injunction application, the trial Court ought to have granted relief in favour of the appellants, in the considered opinion of this Court, is neither tenable nor sustainable in view of the settled principle of law that the plaintiff will have to stand on his strength but not on the weakness of the defendants, if any. 15. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Wander Ltd and another v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727. At paragraph No.14 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "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 the 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. vs. Pothan Joseph (SCR 721)". 16. Though elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellants and the respondents, touching the merits of the suit, this Court does not propose to go into the same as the same may affect the adjudication of the main suit. 17. In view of the reasons mentioned supra, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.