JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 2. By way of instant appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has taken exception to order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in OMP No.173 of 2023 in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023, whereby the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction has been dismissed. 3. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.12.2015 and in alternative has sought a prayer for recovery of Rs.1,60,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. 4. Along with the suit, an application being OMP No. 173 of 2023 was filed for the relief as under:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application be allowed and further proceedings to sell/mortgage/ lease/rented and transfer their share to anyone in any manner respect to above suit property be stayed till the disposal of this civil suit by this Hon’ble Court or any other order be passed which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 5. The respondents herein/defendants are contesting the suit and had also raised objection for grant of interim injunction. 6. The suit has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the premise that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and in fact, she had already paid the entire sale transaction to the respondents/defendants. The performance of agreement was refused by the defendants by issuing a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- favouring the plaintiff towards payment of double the amount of received payment, which was dishonoured on 11.01.2023. That is how the cause of action has been sought to be made out by the plaintiff for filing the suit. 7. Noticeably, the plaint was instituted on 28.03.2023. 8. The appellant/plaintiff had expressed apprehension of being put to irreparable loss and injury as also to multiplicity of litigation in case the defendants were not restrained from alienating and transferring the suit property during pendency of the suit. 9. Learned Single Judge has prima-facie found the relief for specific performance of agreement, as claimed by the appellant/ plaintiff, beyond period of limitation. Doubts have been expressed as to success of plaintiff for such relief in exercise of equity jurisdiction. 10. 9. Learned Single Judge has prima-facie found the relief for specific performance of agreement, as claimed by the appellant/ plaintiff, beyond period of limitation. Doubts have been expressed as to success of plaintiff for such relief in exercise of equity jurisdiction. 10. As regards the relief for money decree, learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant/plaintiff has to satisfy the requirements of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were found absent. 11. Further, the apprehension of the appellant/plaintiff has been found to be baseless on the premise that the right, if any, of the appellant/plaintiff shall be protected by application of principle of lis-pendence. 12. The balance of convenience has also been found to be in favour of the defendants. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to point out any factual error in the impugned order. 14. While prima-facie assessing the comparative merits of the representations made by either sides to a lis involving equitable jurisdiction of the Court, the undue delay in approaching the court by the party seeking relief, is a relevant factor. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order insofar as the delay in filing the suit by the appellant/plaintiff has been considered as a negative factor against the plaintiff. 15. We have also not found the necessary requisites having been pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff entitling her to relief under Rule 5 of Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. To succeed in the instant appeal, the appellant/ plaintiff had to establish perversity, capriciousness, arbitrariness or malafides in passing of the impugned order. 17. While making appellate scrutiny, this Court has not found any perversity in the impugned order. The view taken by learned Single Judge is a possible view, which is based on the material available on record. 18. In result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.