ORDER : The appellants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”), being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the IV Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.647-A/2020, whereby application of respondents / plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction has been allowed and appellants were restrained from alienating or transferring the suit property. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract, possession, damages and permanent injunction before the trial Court against the appellant / defendant and the respondent No.6 by stating that respondent No.1 had entered into the agreement to sale for purchase of the land in question on 11.03.2011 at the rate of Rs.8,75,000/- per acre amounting to total consideration of Rs.1,09,55,000/- and the respondent No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- through cheque on 01.05.2011 and some other amounts on defendants and total amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the appellants in regard of agreement and balance of Rs.94,55,000/- to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed as per the clause 6 of the agreement, but the suit land was affected by ceiling and litigation was pending. Later on ceiling proceedings were declared abated and name of the appellants have been duly recorded as Bhumiswami in the land records on 09.01.2020 and, thereafter, respondent No.1 made a request for registration of sale deed and he was ready with the balance purchase money, but the appellants did not execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 and tried to alienate the suit property thereafter, the plaintiff has issued a notice to the appellants, which was replied by his counsel. Thereafter, respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a civil suit. 3. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the trial Court and sought a relief of temporary injunction against the appellants regarding alienation or transfer of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. Thereafter, respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a civil suit. 3. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the trial Court and sought a relief of temporary injunction against the appellants regarding alienation or transfer of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. appellants have filed a reply by stating that agreement to sale stands nullified, invalid and unenforceable, as the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and State Government has taken possession of the land in question, then the appellant preferred a Writ Petition No.3214 of 2018. Respondent No.1 does not manage the expenses of the application hence, the respondent No.1 was not complied with the Clause 7 of the agreement in question and suit has been filed after lapse of three years which is also time barred. 4. After hearing both the parties, trial Court vide order dated 28.10.2023 allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff, being aggrieved by the same, appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts, respondent No.1 has paid one token money of Rs.15,00,000/- in the year 2011 and filed frivolous litigation, entire land bearing cost of more than Rs.6,15,00,000/-, if the injunction is not granted to the plaintiff then he will suffer only monetary loss, which could not be considered as an irreparable loss. Agreement was executed in the year 2011 and suit was filed in the year 2020 and the plaintiff did not sought any explanation for such a huge delay. The impugned order is against the provisions of Section 16 and 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act, nothing is available on record to establish that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, appellants are the lawful owner and occupier of the property in question. The impugned order is against the provisions of Section 16 and 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act, nothing is available on record to establish that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, appellants are the lawful owner and occupier of the property in question. At the earlier stage, the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed a separate suit on the same grounds, but bearing different survey numbers, in which the application for temporary injunction filed by respondent No.1 has been rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court and the aforesaid orders were affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court also. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that looking to the similarity of the facts that earlier order was also binding on the trial Court as well as the respondent No.1 hence, he prays that no prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is established in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Hazari Lal (Dead) through Lrs. V/s Ramesh Kumar and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1465. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that he was ready to perform the agreement, irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent No.1 as also create multiplicity of complications in the judicial proceedings. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and not deserves for any interference. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh V/s Union of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2685 of 2024 and order passed by this Court in case of Narendra V/s M/s Sachin Leasing and Developers Pvt. Ltd. And another in Misc. Appeal No.5145 of 2022. 8. Despite service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 9. Both the parties heard at length and perused the record with due care. 10. The Hon'ble Apex court in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Appeal No.5145 of 2022. 8. Despite service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 9. Both the parties heard at length and perused the record with due care. 10. The Hon'ble Apex court in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden, AIR 1990 SC 867 , while laying down the principles for the grant of temporary injunction in mandatory form, has held as under:- "....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, court have evolved certain guide-lines. Generally stated, the 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. 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 or complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as pre-requisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion." 11. So far as the issue of prima facie case is concerned, undoubtedly, the appellants / defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the registered lawful owner and occupier of the property in question, although agreement to sale has been executed in favour of the respondent No.1 in the year 2011 and only about Rs.15,00,000/- has been paid by the respondent No.1 out of total consideration which is as per the suit valuation of the respondent No.1 is more than Rs.6,15,00,000/-. Undoubtedly, only token amount has been paid by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff to the appellants. 12. Undoubtedly, only token amount has been paid by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff to the appellants. 12. It is also noteworthy that the agreement to sale was initially executed on 09.03.2011, the terms and conditions of the agreement was never renewed or modified, suit has been filed 11 years after the execution of the agreement to sale, in which the cost of the suit property has been increased so many times. As per the Clause 7 of the agreement in question, the respondent No.1 / plaintiff is bound to bear the expenses incurred in the litigation but it was not duly complied with by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff has never gave any notice to the appellant to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his role in the said contract. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff did not file any explanation for huge delay of 11 years. In view of the aforesaid, the prima facie case is very doubtfully of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. 13. Apart from the above, it is noteworthy that another agreement to sale was executed between the appellant / respondent No.1 on same terms and conditions like the present one then. Respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No.99-A/2022 for specific performance of contract and other reliefs before the 22nd District Judge, Indore with a prayer of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, application was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2022 on the ground that the plaintiff has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement to sale, especially, Clause 6 and 7 of the agreement. The order has been challenged by the respondent No.1 before this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2232 of 2022 and vide order dated 29.08.2022, same has been dismissed then, the respondent No.1 has preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21888 of 2022, but same has also been dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2023. All these orders are almost identical in facts, but learned trial Court has ignored all these earlier orders which ought to have been considered by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has misunderstood the aforesaid orders and erred in disbelieving the same that it is not pending. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. The learned trial Court has misunderstood the aforesaid orders and erred in disbelieving the same that it is not pending. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. 14. So far as the balance of convenience is concerned, appellants are the registered owner and occupier of the suit land in question, only token amount has been paid by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. The respondent No.1 has sought relief for damages to the tune of Rs.6,15,00,000/-. If no injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff then, the plaintiff shall suffer only mandatory loss, which could not be considered to be irreparable loss. Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in holding the point for irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff. 15. In the case of Laturiya V/s Shyambabu, 1990 (2) MPWN 126 , this Court has expressed agreement with the view taken in Vadivel Mudaliar and another vs. Pachianna Counder, AIR 1974 Madras 87, wherein it has been held :- “In the matter of granting temporary injunction, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration the affidavits and the relevant documents before it records a finding. 'Taking into consideration the documents' does not mean merely referring to the same in the judgment; but there must be some discussion about them before any conclusion is arrived at. Unfortunately, the Courts below have not adverted to these documents, though not in detail at least prima facie, except referring them in their judgments. This has completely vitiated the orders of the Courts below, which, in my opinion, is a material irregularity, and has to be taken that the Courts below have not exercised their jurisdiction vested in them by law.” 16. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that appellants are the registered owner of the suit property in the earlier litigation on the similar facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 / plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected and said order was maintained upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, only token amount has been paid by the plaintiff. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, only token amount has been paid by the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case, balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss is made out in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff the trial Court has not considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the trial Court has failed in discharging the duties. It is a duty of the trial Court to apply its mind to the facts of the case and take into consideration all the relevant principle of law, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 17. With the aforesaid, this Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.10.2023 is hereby set aside. It is made clear that the observations made in this order have been made only for the purpose of disposal of this miscellaneous appeal and same shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the civil suit. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Rules.