Judgment : (Ganesh Ram Meena, J.) 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the court below’) in Temporary Injunction Application No. 52/2024 (CIS No. 445/24) whereby the court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction and also to allow the said application. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement/ receipt dated 09.10.2022, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction, along-with an application for temporary injunction in regard to the land situated in different khasras, total land ad-measuring 1.7600 hectare (hereinafter to be referred to be ‘disputed land’) situated at Revenue Bagru Khurd, Patwar Halka Bhambhoria, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur in the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue record. The respondent/ defendant No.1 agreed to sale his agricultural land in lieu of total sale consideration of Rs.1,42,05,000/- on 09.10.2022 and received the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of execution of agreement/ receipt dated 09.10.2022 from the appellant and rest of sale consideration was to be paid within five months. Thereafter, the appellant transferred the sum of sale consideration on 11.10.2022 through RTGS Rs.15 lakh in the account of respondent No.1. As per the agreement dated 09.10.2022 the total sale consideration was to be paid within a period of five months to the respondent No.1 and after receiving the entire sale consideration by the respondent No.1, he was to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant within the stipulated period. 3. When service of notices could not be effected upon the respondents/ defendants then appellant moved an application before the court below for publication of the notices in the daily newspaper, which was allowed. Despite publication of the notices in the newspaper, the respondents No.1 to 3 did not appear before the court below which resulted into initiating ex-parte proceedings against the respondents / defendants No.1 to 3 and vide order dated 28.11.2024 the court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant/ applicant. 4. Despite publication of the notices in the newspaper, the respondents No.1 to 3 did not appear before the court below which resulted into initiating ex-parte proceedings against the respondents / defendants No.1 to 3 and vide order dated 28.11.2024 the court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant/ applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the court below is against the facts available on record and contrary to the pleadings made by the parties. Counsel submitted that the respondent No.1 executed an agreement receipt dated 09.10.2022 in favour of the appellant regarding their agricultural land in presence of the witnesses and received the sale consideration at the time of agreement receipt dated 09.10.2022 and rest of the amount of sale execution of sale deed within five months but the respondent No.1 did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant regarding agricultural disputed land, whereas the respondent No.1 received the sale consideration of Rs. 17 lakh out of total sale consideration from the appellant. Counsel submitted that the court below erred in not considering the documents submitted by the appellant. Counsel submitted that the prima facie case lies in favour of the appellant as he transferred the sale consideration through cash as well as RTGS in the account of respondent No.1 regarding the disputed land according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement/ receipt dated 09.10.2022 and the appellant was ready and willing to make payment of remaining sale consideration and continuously approached the respondent No.1 for paying the sale consideration amount and asking him to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Counsel also submitted that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the appellant. Counsel further submitted that in case the temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the appellant then the respondents will transfer the land in dispute to other persons and it will create the third party rights and the respondents No.2 and 3 will try to convert the disputed land for non-agricultural purposes for developing the residential scheme and therefore, irreparable injury will be caused to the appellant. Counsel submitted that the appellant despite having three settled principles of granting temporary injunction in his favour, the court below erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction. Counsel submitted that the appellant despite having three settled principles of granting temporary injunction in his favour, the court below erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction. Counsel further submitted that the court below while deciding the application for temporary injunction has not considered the provisions of section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- A. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31, delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; and B. U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. Lrs V. A.M. Krishnamurthy, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588, delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents (No.2 & 3)/ defendants opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the appellant and submitted that the court below after meticulously examining the material which was made available to it and finding three settled principles of temporary injunction against the appellant, rightly dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court E. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited & Ors. v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited & Ors., reported in (2020) 5 SCC 410 , delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; F. Ravikiran Vasant Gore v. Sainath Enterprises Parnershpi Firm & Ors., reported in 2023 (3) ABR 21, delivered by the High Court of Bombay. 6. Mr. Amit Kuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff during the course of arguments has placed before the court the photocopies of the plaint, application for temporary injunction and other documents including the agreement/ correspondences took place in between the parties and so also the sale deed executed by the defendant /respondent No.1- Amardeep Kapoor Singh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the original land owner’) in favour of respondent No.2- Balaji Dayalpura Builders & Developers Private Limited. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties and gone through the material made available to the Court including the judgments cited above. 8. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties and gone through the material made available to the Court including the judgments cited above. 8. As regards the grant of temporary injunction application is concerned, the Court is required to see whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the applicant and balance of convenience also lies in his favour and there would be irreparable loss, if temporary injunction is not granted? 9. As per the facts of the case borne out from the pleadings i.e. the plaint and application for temporary injunction are that an agreement was executed by the respondent/defendant No.1 Amardeep Kapoor Singh on 09.10.2022 in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff as regards the sale of the land in question for which an earnest money was also given to the original land owner and the remaining sale consideration amount was to be paid within a period of five months thereafter. On 13.11.2022 the appellant served a notice to the original land owner Amardeep Kapoor Singh stating that the appellant is ready and willing to make the payment as agreed in the agreement dated 09.10.2022 and he should register the sale deed executed of the land in question in his favour. The respondent No.1- Amardeep Kapoor Singh responded to the notice served by the appellant/plaintiff vide letter dated 05.12.2022 and stated the ignorance about the agreement dated 09.10.2022. The appellant again on 06.03.2023 served a notice to the original land owner Amardeep Kapoor Singh and stated to accept the balance payment ready with him and get the sale deed registered in his favour of the land in question. It was also stated that in case he will not execute the registered sale deed in his favour and if he will try to alienate the property to third party, he will initiate legal proceedings against him. The appellant also published notices to this effect in the newspaper. The appellant has also placed before the Court the Whatsapp chats which took place between him and the original land owner Amardeep Kapoor Singh. As per the facts available on record in between this correspondence, the original land owner Amardeep Kapoor Singh executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2- Balaji Dayalpura Builders & Developers Private Limited on 10.01.2024 and the present suit has been filed thereafter. As per the facts available on record in between this correspondence, the original land owner Amardeep Kapoor Singh executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2- Balaji Dayalpura Builders & Developers Private Limited on 10.01.2024 and the present suit has been filed thereafter. The learned court below dismissed the application for temporary injunction and has observed that the plaintiff/ appellant has only paid meager amount of Rs.17 lacs against the sale agreement dated 09.10.2022. Only because some meager amount has been paid it has observed that no prima facie case has been found in favour of the plaintiff. Only because a person has paid the meager amount against the sale consideration, cannot be a ground to give a finding that no prima facie case is made out in his favour. The Court is required to see whether on the basis of the pleadings and the material facts which are being placed by the plaintiff, have some substance for consideration or not on consideration of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties? As per the agreement dated 09.10.2022 the total sale consideration amount was to be paid within a period of five months. The earnest money of amount of Rs.17 lacs was paid to the original land owner and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid within five months. The appellant as per the material made available on record also, also served notice to the original land owner on 13.11.2022 and 06.03.2023 asking the original land owner to accept the remaining sale consideration amount and get the registered sale deed executed in his favour. The court below has accepted the aforesaid facts but has observed that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff only on the ground that the plaintiff has paid only amount of Rs.17 lacs to the original land owner and has not paid any additional amount. 10. When this correspondence was going on, the original land owner executed a registered sale deed of the land in question in favour of third party i.e. the respondent No.2- Balaji Dayalpura Builders & Developers Private Limited. 10. When this correspondence was going on, the original land owner executed a registered sale deed of the land in question in favour of third party i.e. the respondent No.2- Balaji Dayalpura Builders & Developers Private Limited. The appellant has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 09.10.2022 so also the cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.01.2024 and also for permanent injunction, soon after when the appellant came to know about the fact that the original land owner so as to frustrate the agreement dated 09.10.2022 has sold out the land to the third person i.e. the respondent No.2 and has also issued the notice to him for accepting the remaining amount of sale consideration and to get register sale deed executed in his favour, the original land owner replying to the notice of the appellant has only shown his ignorance about the agreement dated 9.10.2022 and has never specifically rebutted that he has not executed any agreement. On going through the reply dated 05.12.2022 given by the original land owner Amardeep Kapoor Singh, this Court finds that he has mentioned in the reply that he is an IRS Officer (Commissioner of Income Tax). The fact of stating that the original land owner is an IRS Officer (Commissioner of Income Tax) is though not relevant to these proceedings but it goes to show that the original land owner is trying to put in fear the appellant of the consequences of pursuing the legal remedy which in the opinion of the Court goes against him. 11. During the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the appellant also submitted that the appellant was always ready and willing to make the payment of remaining sale consideration from the very beginning as is borne out from the notice served by the appellant to the original land owner and the appellant today is still ready to deposit the remaining sale consideration amount with the Court, if the respondent agrees to comply with the agreement. 12. One of the submission of the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 is that the plaintiff has filed the suit by an inordinate delay from the date of cause of action arose to him, though the suit may be within the limitation period but a person has to avail the legal remedy within the appropriate time. 12. One of the submission of the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 is that the plaintiff has filed the suit by an inordinate delay from the date of cause of action arose to him, though the suit may be within the limitation period but a person has to avail the legal remedy within the appropriate time. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the alleged agreement was executed on 09.10.2022 and further time of five months was there for paying the remaining sale consideration amount. The original land owner executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 on 10.01.2024. The cause of action arose to the plaintiff/ appellant on completion of five months period on the date of the agreement but he did not avail the legal remedy and has filed the suit only after execution of the registered sale deed in his favour. As per the facts of the case stated above, this Court prima facie finds that the plaintiff/ appellant was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration amount and for that he has already issued notice to the original land owner and he is also making efforts for getting the registered sale deed in his favour. On 10.01.2024 the original land owner without there being any intimation to the plaintiff/ appellant executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2. 13. Having regard to the facts on record, this Court is of the opinion that there was no any inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff/ appellant in filing the civil suit. Having regard to the discussions made above and the discussions made in the judgments referred by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that there is a good prima face case in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 14. Whether the plaintiff/ appellant has a balance of convenience in his favour or irreparable loss would be caused to him, if interim order as prayed for is not granted? From the discussion made on the issue of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant, this Court finds that the plaintiff/ appellant has agreed to purchase an agricultural land from its original land owner. From the discussion made on the issue of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant, this Court finds that the plaintiff/ appellant has agreed to purchase an agricultural land from its original land owner. The original land owner has now executed the registered sale deed on 10.01.2024 in favour of respondent No.2 who has now started efforts for planning a residential colony over the land in question. May be that the respondent No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question but since this Court has already hold that there is a good prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant and he has also filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, if the interim order as prayed for by him is not granted the land in question will be transferred to several persons as the purchaser is now planning for a residential colony over the land. The land use may also change and in future the land may not be available for the purposes for which the plaintiff/ appellant has agreed to purchase the same by agreement dated 09.10.2022. Hence, the Court finds that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant and there would be irreparable loss, if interim order as prayed for by the plaintiff/ appellant is not granted to him. 15. Accordingly, this civil misc. appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Misc. Application No. 52/2024 is quashed and set aside. The application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff/ appellant is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are restrained from alienating the land in question. The respondents shall not create any rights of any other party and shall also maintain the status quo as regards the record, possession and status of the land in question. 16. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the claims and rights of the parties and their future impacts, this Court deems just and proper to direct the court below to conclude the suit proceedings as early as possible and during the conclusion of the suit proceedings, the parties shall not make any unwarranted request/s for adjournment. 17. 17. In view of the judgment passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.