JUDGMENT : 1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.84/2022 (CIS No.84/2022), whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TI Application’) as preferred by plaintiff–appellant Ghanshyam Meena has been partly allowed. Vide the order impugned, defendant-respondent No.7 Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. has been restrained from alienating (selling) the property in question with effect from the date of the order i.e. 03.11.2023. 2. In the present appeal, appearance in caveat for respondent No.7 has been given by counsel Mr. J.M. Choudhary. Both the counsels for plaintiff and respondent No.7 agree that the matter be heard finally as the relief in the present appeal has been prayed for against respondent No.7 only. In view of the submission made, final arguments were heard and the order was reserved. 3. Before taking note of the arguments as raised by both the counsels on merits of the case, a brief of the facts is essential : (i) The present suit for specific performance of contract, cancellation of the sale deeds and permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Ghanshyam Meena against legal representatives of Shankar Lal Meena (defendants No.1 to 6) and Grace Colonizers Private Limited (defendant No.7). The case of the plaintiff was that Shankar Lal Meena, vide an agreement to sell dated 15.11.2005, sold out his agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.18,50,000/- to him. The complete consideration amount was paid on the said date only and it was agreed between the parties that Shankar Lal would get the land converted into residential and obtain the residential pattas qua the land in question from the UIT. After obtaining the said pattas, he would execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff Ghanshyam Meena. However, the conversion proceedings could not be completed and hence, an agreement dated 05.02.2013 to fortify the earlier agreement to sell was again executed between the parties. Shankar Lal expired on 25.06.2016 and therefore, an agreement dated 13.07.2018 was executed by the legal representatives of Shankar Lal in favour of the plaintiff to reaffirm/fortify the earlier agreements dated 15.11.2005 and 05.02.2013. Shankar Lal expired on 25.06.2016 and therefore, an agreement dated 13.07.2018 was executed by the legal representatives of Shankar Lal in favour of the plaintiff to reaffirm/fortify the earlier agreements dated 15.11.2005 and 05.02.2013. (ii) However, the plaintiff in the year 2022, came to know that the legal representatives of Shankar Lal had, malafidely, sold out the land to defendant No.7 and hence, preferred the present suit for specific performance of three contracts executed in his favour and further, for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by legal representatives of Shankar Lal in favour of Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Defendants No.1 to 6 specifically denied the execution of all the three agreements either by their father or by them. They, however, admitted the sale deeds executed by them in favour of respondent No.7. The said defendants pleaded the agreement dated 15.11.2005 to be an antedated, forged and fraudulent document. (iv) Defendant No.7 also, while pleading against the genuineness of the agreements as alleged by the plaintiff, submitted that the land was sold out vide registered sale deeds to it even prior to the filing of the suit. The possession of the land had been handed over to it and it was in possession of the property. Hence, no order of injunction could be granted against it, there being no privity of contract between the plaintiff and it. 4. Before adverting into the merits of the case, certain facts/orders are also relevant to be taken note of : (i) At the first instance, an ad interim order dated 23.06.2022 was passed by the learned trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land in question. However, till that date, defendant No.7 was not served. (ii) After the service of defendant No.7 on 15.07.2022 and a reply been filed by it to the TI Application, vide order dated 19.07.2022, while observing that defendants No.1 to 6 have already been restrained, learned trial Court directed defendant No.7 not to alienate/transfer the property in question. (iii) Admittedly, the orders dated 23.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 remained in existence till the final disposal of the TI Application vide the order impugned dated 03.11.2023. (iv) Despite the interim orders being in operation, the proceedings for issuance of patta were undertaken by the UIT and hence, various writ petitions were preferred by the plaintiff at different stages. (iii) Admittedly, the orders dated 23.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 remained in existence till the final disposal of the TI Application vide the order impugned dated 03.11.2023. (iv) Despite the interim orders being in operation, the proceedings for issuance of patta were undertaken by the UIT and hence, various writ petitions were preferred by the plaintiff at different stages. Ultimately, vide order dated 19.09.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9958/2023, the learned trial Court was directed to decide the TI Application within a period of 30 days and till the disposal of the said application, all the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the land in question as it existed on the said date. (v) The TI Application was hence, decided vide order dated 03.11.2023 by the learned trial Court which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant with first and foremost ground that by specifying the date of 03.11.2023 in the order impugned, the learned trial Court has virtually undone the earlier interim orders granted by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no requirement of specifying any such date in the order as admittedly, there were interim orders operating in the matter till the date of passing of the present impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9958/2023; Ghanshyam Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., direction to maintain status quo by all the parties was in operation and prior to that, the interim orders dated 23.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 were in operation. Meaning thereby since 23.06.2022, there was an interim order operating and hence, no action in breach of the said interim orders could have been taken by the respondents. However, vide the order impugned, the learned trial Court, by specifying a particular date, has virtually given a go by to the respondents for all the acts done between the period from 23.06.2022 to 03.11.2023. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the order dated 03.11.2023 deserves to be modified to the extent that the respondents be directed to maintain status quo qua the land in question and further the date as specified in the order be deleted. 6. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the order dated 03.11.2023 deserves to be modified to the extent that the respondents be directed to maintain status quo qua the land in question and further the date as specified in the order be deleted. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the sole fact that the defendants, in collusion with the UIT, despite the interim orders passed by the Courts being in operation, not only proceeded with the proceedings for issuance of the pattas but also proceeded on to sell out the land in question, which is in total defiance of the orders passed by the Court. Hence, this sole fact is enough to pass an order of status quo qua the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that it is evident on record that the defendants have most defiantly, ignoring the interim orders of the Court, created third party rights and if they are not restrained, it would definitely lead into multiplicity of the proceedings and irreparable injury to the plaintiff as his suit for specific performance of contract would virtually render infructuous and no effective relief could be granted to him. Learned counsel further submitted that all the subsequent proceedings taken up by the defendants after passing of the interim orders are sufficient to prove a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and also that the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488 and of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Sameer Kohli & Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, 2023(1) DNJ (Raj.) 126. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that no case in favour of the plaintiff is made out as he has not been able even to prima facie prove any agreement having been executed in his favour. Further, there is no reason as to why the plaintiff, who alleges the execution of agreements of the years 2005, 2013 & 2018 in his favour, sat tight over the matter and did not take any action whatsoever till the year 2023. Further, there is no reason as to why the plaintiff, who alleges the execution of agreements of the years 2005, 2013 & 2018 in his favour, sat tight over the matter and did not take any action whatsoever till the year 2023. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not disputed that the possession of the property in question was handed over to respondent No.7 and even pattas by the UIT in favour of the purchasers have been issued. Learned counsel while relying upon the judgment in the case of Rajmohan Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., AIR 2013 Raj. 153 submitted that once the property in question had been transferred to respondent no.7 vide a registered document and it had been in possession of the said property, merely on account of pendency of the suit seeking specific performance, which relief itself is a discretionary relief in terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, respondent no.7 cannot be restrained from enjoying the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The factual aspect which emerges from the facts on record, is that appellant Ghanshyam Meena alleges that three agreements of 15.11.2005, 05.02.2013 & 13.07.2018 were executed in his favour by Shiv Lal Meena and his legal representatives respectively. The suit qua the said agreements was preferred in the month of June 2022. Parallelly, respondent No.7, Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. avers that oral agreements of 03.06.2006 & 21.07.2007 and a written agreement of 04.02.2008 were executed by Shiv Lal Meena in its favour. It preferred a suit qua the said agreements in the month of August 2015. Meaning thereby, prior to filing of the present suit in question by Ghanshyam Meena, a suit had been preferred by respondent No.7 in the year 2015, which even stood decided by way of compromise in the month of February 2022. Even the sale deeds in favour of respondent No.7 were executed by the legal representatives of Shiv Lal Meena in pursuance to the said compromise decree. Meaning thereby, respondent No.7 was put in possession of the property by virtue of registered sale deed in its favour. The fact of respondent No.7 been in possession of the property has not been disputed by plaintiff Ghanshyam Meena too. Meaning thereby, respondent No.7 was put in possession of the property by virtue of registered sale deed in its favour. The fact of respondent No.7 been in possession of the property has not been disputed by plaintiff Ghanshyam Meena too. Therefore, evidently respondent No.7 is legally on a better footing as compared to plaintiff Ghanshyam Meena. As is clear on record, respondent No.7 is a developer/purchaser and as observed by the learned trial Court, if it is restrained from user of the property, it would definitely be at a comparative more hardship, it having invested huge amounts for purchase of property in question. 10. Dealing with the similar situation wherein a prayer was made to prevent development of a property by the purchasers/developers, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante and Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 77 , held as under : “23. Now, coming to the question of balance of convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss and injury, it has to be kept in mind that the Respondent No.10 has already acquired rights in respect of the share of the Respondent Nos.8 and 9 to the suit property and in the event an interim order is passed preventing development of the portion of the property acquired by it, it would suffer irreparable loss and injury since it would not be able to utilize the property till the suit is disposed of, which could take several years at the original stage, and, thereafter, several more years at the appellate stages. The appellant herein has been sufficiently protected by the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal. While the Respondent No.10 has been permitted to carry out construction activities over the disputed land, it has been restrained from alienating or transferring the property or from creating any third party right therein during the pendency of the suit.” 11. In keeping with the above ratio, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court to the extent of non-grant of any injunction qua the possession and user of the property in question by respondent No.7. In keeping with the above ratio, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court to the extent of non-grant of any injunction qua the possession and user of the property in question by respondent No.7. But then, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that despite the interim orders dated 23.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 as passed by the learned trial Court being in operation, the proceedings for issuance of pattas in favour of the subsequent purchasers have very well been taken up by the respondents before the UIT and admittedly, pattas have been issued by the UIT. A perusal of the note-sheets of the UIT as placed on record by the appellant clearly specifies that the respondent No.7, while applying for approval of integrated township, filed an affidavit before the UIT to the effect that there is no stay order operating qua the land in question passed by any Court and further that, if the proceedings for regularisation are undertaken by the UIT with a condition of the same been made subject to the decision of the suit, it would have no objection. It is on the said affidavit been filed by respondent No.7 that the UIT proceeded on to approve the plan for the integrated township. The relevant note-sheet dated 15.09.2022 of the UIT reads as under : “Rajasthan Urban Areas Rules 2012 12. Interestingly, the check-list prepared by the UIT for the land conversion/regularisation of the land in question although takes note of the pendency of the present suit in question but then, it makes a mention that there is no stay on regularisation/allotment of the land. It further takes note of the affidavit as filed by the applicants wherein it had been submitted on oath that there was no interim order operating qua the land in question. Further, it is also clear on record that vide his opinion dated 06.08.2022, the Secretary, UIT, Udaipur specifically opined that as there is an order of status quo operating qua the land in question, no proceedings for recommendation of the township plan should be undertaken/proceeded with. Further, it is also clear on record that the pattas in question have been issued between the period from 09.01.2023 to 16.01.2023 i.e. after the interim order dated 19.07.2022 having been passed. Further, it is also clear on record that the pattas in question have been issued between the period from 09.01.2023 to 16.01.2023 i.e. after the interim order dated 19.07.2022 having been passed. Meaning thereby, it is crystal clear on record that despite interim orders dated 23.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 been in operation, respondent No.7, in total defiance of the same, undertook the process for approval of the integrated township and got the pattas issued in favour of the subsequent purchasers, which evidently, although indirectly, was a transfer of the land by respondent No.7 to the subsequent purchasers through the Urban Improvement Trust. 13. Keeping into consideration the above facts, this Court is of the clear opinion that respondent No.7 deserves to be restrained from alienating or transferring the property in question and also from creating third party rights in the property in question till the disposal of the suit. While making this observation, this Court also observes that the interim orders dated 23.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 passed by the learned trial Court and further order dated 19.09.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9958/2023, Ghanshayam Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. to maintain status quo qua the property in question were in operation till the decision of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, CPC i.e. till 03.11.2023. 14. So far as the issue whether the parties should be directed to maintain status quo qua the property in question is concerned, it cannot be held that irreparable injury shall be caused to the appellant if the order of injunction against raising construction and maintaining status quo is refused as ultimately, if the suit is decided in favour of the appellant, he can either retain the construction raised, if any, or respondent No.7 can be directed to pull down the construction raised by him. In this regard, the observation as made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. S.P. Real Estate Developers (P) Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 776 , would be of relevance : “27. If ultimately, the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is decreed, he can be compensated in damages or the respondent-defendants may be directed to pull down the construction and deliver vacant possession to the appellant-plaintiff when no equity can be claimed for such construction by the respondent defendants.” 15. If ultimately, the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is decreed, he can be compensated in damages or the respondent-defendants may be directed to pull down the construction and deliver vacant possession to the appellant-plaintiff when no equity can be claimed for such construction by the respondent defendants.” 15. In view of the overall analysis and the observations as made in the preceding paras, the present appeal is partly allowed. The Order impugned dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.84/2022 (CIS No.84/2022) is hereby modified to the extent that till final disposal of the suit in question, respondent No.7 shall be restrained from alienating/transferring the property in question and also from creating any third party rights in the same. Further, any transfer/alienation, if made, shall remain subject to the doctrine of lis pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882. 16. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.