JUDGMENT : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. By filing instant misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, the defendant/appellant has challenged the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sangander) [for short ‘the court below’] in TI Application No. 166/2024 (Prakash Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. M/s. A.K.G. Affordable Housing Private Limited), whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs / respondents has been partly allowed. 2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along-with the application for temporary injunction before the Court below mentioning that that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 81 (0.08 H), 82/01 (0.01 H), 83 (0.72 H) and 95/01 (1.37 H), in all 4 Khasras measuring 2.18 Hectares situated in Village Chak Harbanspura, Patwar Halka Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject land’) was purchased by the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2015 from Smt. Phooli Devi W/o Prabhu Narayan and since then they are in possession of the said land and mutation in their name was opened after demarcation of the land. An agreement to sell the subject land dated 11.02.2016 was executed by the plaintiffs/respondents in favour of the defendant/appellant. The consideration for the said land was Rs. 1,90,00,000/- per Bigha and, therefore, the total consideration was Rs. 16,50,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was paid by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiffs/respondents by cheques. It was further mentioned that a sale deed was executed on 18.04.2016 where the consideration amount was mentioned at DLC rates total amounting to Rs.9,50,00,000/-. An agreement was executed on 18.04.2016 in which it was mentioned that the cheques, 11 in numbers, for remaining amount of Rs.5,54,00,000/- had been given to plaintiffs/respondents which were dishonoured and the dispute arose between the parties. Subsequently, an agreement dated 20.09.2018 (02.03.2019) was executed in which 13 cheques of the outstanding consideration amount with interest as agreed of Rs.7,95,00,000/- were given to the plaintiffs. It was further also mentioned that the defendant/appellant stopped the payment of cheques and, therefore, the cheques were returned back by the bank to the plaintiffs/respondents. On this, the plaintiffs/respondents got the construction stopped at the site. On 07.08.2021 and thereafter on 25.11.2021, the defendant/appellant tried to raise construction by taking possession of the disputed land. It was further also mentioned that the defendant/appellant stopped the payment of cheques and, therefore, the cheques were returned back by the bank to the plaintiffs/respondents. On this, the plaintiffs/respondents got the construction stopped at the site. On 07.08.2021 and thereafter on 25.11.2021, the defendant/appellant tried to raise construction by taking possession of the disputed land. On this, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the court of Addl. Civil Judge No. 17, Sanganer, titled as Prakash Kumar Sharma Vs. AKG which is still pending. However, the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs in that suit was dismissed on 11.05.2022 against which a Miscellaneous Appeal is filed which is pending. It was pleaded that the defendants have the sale deed executed by playing fraud. 3. The defendant/appellant filed reply to temporary injunction application mentioning that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and have suppressed material facts. It was also submitted that the suit is barred by limitation as the sale deed was registered on 18.04.2016 and suit for cancellation has been filed after a period of 8 years. It was also pleaded that once the sale has been completed and the sale deed is registered then the sale deed cannot be challenged. The defendant/appellant has already paid the consideration amount through cheques/RTGS. The suit for recovery of amount is barred by limitation. The JDA has issued a Patta dated 21.10.2016 which has been registered and the Patta has not been challenged. For pecuniary loss, no injunction can be granted. The plaintiffs/respondents do not have actual physical possession of the disputed property. The defendant/appellant has already constructed 4 Towers on the disputed land and 289 affordable flats have been sold through registered sale deed and possession has been given to the purchasers. Out of which 40 families have started living there. It was also pleaded that 291 flats have been sold through agreement to sell and finishing works on these flats are going on. The plaintiffs/respondents have not challenged those sale deed and agreements. There is no possession, therefore, no injunction can be granted. It was also pleaded that in the earlier suit which was filed on 17.12.2021, the plaintiffs/respondents have not prayed for declaration and possession and, therefore, they have abandoned/ relinquished their rights and, therefore, the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. There is no possession, therefore, no injunction can be granted. It was also pleaded that in the earlier suit which was filed on 17.12.2021, the plaintiffs/respondents have not prayed for declaration and possession and, therefore, they have abandoned/ relinquished their rights and, therefore, the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. In the earlier suit, temporary injunction application was dismissed on 11.05.2022 and against the said order, though an appeal was filed but there is no stay order till date. The suit is not maintainable under Section 34 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT . The defendant/appellant company is making affordable housing project and under Section 20A and Section 41 (ha) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , no injunction can be granted with regard to infrastructure project. Under Section 20B of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The plaintiffs/respondents have got efficacious alternative remedy and, therefore, the temporary injunction is not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff (Prakash) had made a complaint before the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur, and the said complaint has been dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2023. The present suit is not maintainable under Section 80 of the RERA Act. The plaintiffs/respondents have concealed the fact that JDA had approved the maps of defendant/appellant for construction on the disputed property and for 2 Towers, completion certificate has been issued and the families have started residing there. The suit as well as Temporary Injunction application is barred by Section 11 read with Section 141 CPC by the principles of res judicata and prayed that the temporary injunction application may be dismissed with cost. 4. The Court below vide its order dated 08.11.2024 partly allowed the temporary injunction application. Hence, this civil misc. appeal. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Sharma appearing for the defendant/appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is ex- facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Senior Counsel submitted that court below partly allowed the application of the defendant/ appellant and granted relief to the plaintiffs which neither claimed nor sought in the temporary injunction application. It is settled proposition of law that the court cannot travel beyond the relief. Senior Counsel submitted that court below partly allowed the application of the defendant/ appellant and granted relief to the plaintiffs which neither claimed nor sought in the temporary injunction application. It is settled proposition of law that the court cannot travel beyond the relief. Senior Counsel submitted that from a bare perusal of impugned order, it is clear that the court below decreed the suit for recovery of the amount at the stage of temporary injunction application and it tantamounts to a pre-trial decree. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial is without jurisdiction. He also submitted that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the application and issuing directions to the defendant/appellant to deposit the amount of sale deed and future sale deed/agreement in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs neither filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC; nor any application was filed under Order 25 CPC. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below is without jurisdiction. Senior Counsel also submitted that the defendant/appellant paid the entire sale consideration which has been mentioned in the sale deed. The Court below while deciding the application for temporary injunction did not consider the provisions of Section 55 (4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act and without considering the aforesaid legal provision allowed the temporary injunction application. He also submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable and the suit is not only barred by law but also barred by limitation and it is a settled proposition of law that it is also tried law when suit is not maintainable then how a temporary injunction application is maintainable but the learned trial court illegally allowed the temporary injunction application when the suit is apparently barred by law and barred by limitation and the plaintiffs were not accruing any cause of action. Senior Counsel also submitted that the relief which has been granted by the court below is beyond the scope of suit as well as temporary application and the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the temporary injunction application. The court below was not having jurisdiction to mould the relief while deciding the temporary injunction application. He submitted that earlier the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction and the same relief which has been sought in the present temporary application was prayed. The court below was not having jurisdiction to mould the relief while deciding the temporary injunction application. He submitted that earlier the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction and the same relief which has been sought in the present temporary application was prayed. The temporary injunction application was dismissed on merit by the court below and against which the plaintiffs preferred a Civil Misc. Appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Head Quarter, Sanganer, along-with stay application, which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court and in garb of temporary injunction application, the plaintiffs want to review the order passed by the same court for which the learned trial court was not having jurisdiction but the learned court below did not consider the aforesaid facts and partly allowed the temporary injunction application. Senior Counsel further submitted that the sale consideration received from flat holders were invested in raising the construction and also the defendant/appellant obtained loan from the various financial institutions but the learned court below did not take any heed on the aforesaid fact and allowed the temporary injunction application without any basis. The court below did not consider the provisions of Section 41 (ha) and Section 20A of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT and without considering the same allowed the temporary injunction application. Senior Counsel further submitted that the right, title or interest has been devolved as soon as the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant/appellant and the same cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs but the learned trial court entertained the suit as well as the temporary injunction application ignoring the settled legal proposition. The plaintiffs were not having prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in-spite of this fact, the learned trial court decided all three aforesaid ingredients in favour of the plaintiffs. Senior Counsel also submitted that the court below has not at all read the sale deed dated 18.04.2016. In the said sale deed, it has been mentioned that the disputed land has been sold on the overall consideration of Rs.9,50,00,000/- to the defendant/appellant and the whole amount of sale deed has been received by way of cheques. In the said sale deed, it has also been mentioned that the possession of disputed land has been handed over to the purchaser and that the defendant/appellant has become the owner in possession of disputed land. In the said sale deed, it has also been mentioned that the possession of disputed land has been handed over to the purchaser and that the defendant/appellant has become the owner in possession of disputed land. The court below without even reading the sale deed, has perversely come to the conclusion that the sale was not completed till the consideration amount was not paid. It is submitted that full consideration amount was paid to the plaintiffs/respondents as is evident from the bank statement submitted by the defendant/appellant. Senior Counsel also submitted that court below has wrongly held that the full consideration was not paid as is evident from the three agreements. It is submitted that a perusal of bank statements would go to show that till 13.11.2020 in all Rs.9,96,95,879.80 were paid to the plaintiffs/respondents which was Rs.46,95,879.80 in excess of the consideration amount. The defendant/appellant was forced to execute these three agreements as the plaintiffs/respondents by use of their might stopped the construction activities carried on by the defendant/appellant. However, it is submitted that agreed consideration amount was Rs.9,50,00,000/- only, whereas the plaintiffs/respondents were paid Rs.9,96,95,879/- which was in excess of Rs.46,95,879.80. A perusal of the bank statements submitted by the defendant/appellant before the court below would show that more than the consideration amount was paid and the reasoning given by the court below is totally perverse. Senior Counsel further submitted that the view taken by the court below with regard to three agreements would amount to avoidance of tax by the plaintiffs/respondents and any agreement in violation of law is void ab-initio and is not enforceable. Under Section 23 of the CONTRACT ACT , object of the agreement or the consideration is forbidden by law or is opposed to public policy, the agreement itself is void and is not enforceable. Senior Counsel further submitted that the court below has not considered that the alternative prayer in the suit is for grant of a decree of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-. It is settled proposition of law that when the plaintiffs can be compensated in terms of money, no injunction can be granted. He also submitted that the court below has not considered that the plaintiff- Prakash filed a complaint before the Rajasthan Real Estate Authority, Jaipur, which was decided on 21.08.2023 and, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable under Section 80 of RERA Act. He also submitted that the court below has not considered that the plaintiff- Prakash filed a complaint before the Rajasthan Real Estate Authority, Jaipur, which was decided on 21.08.2023 and, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable under Section 80 of RERA Act. Senior Counsel further submitted that the court below has not at all considered the provisions of Section 20A of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT which specifically provides that no injunction should be granted which would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of an infrastructure project. He also submitted that the court below has erred in holding that the defendant/appellant is in illegal possession of the property. The court below has erred in holding that the continuance of the project would only be possible when the ownership is decided. The view taken by the court below that the Sections 20A, 41(h) and 41(ha) cannot be used as a tool to safeguard the illegal acts, is perverse and against law and facts. Senior Counsel further submitted that the court below has not considered that no injunction can be granted in the suit which is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Admittedly, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction in which they have not made any prayer for cancellation of sale deed. The present suit for cancellation of sale deed and recovery of amount is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. He submitted that in the earlier suit, the learned court below has already dismissed the application of temporary injunction by a detailed order. There is no reason whatsoever to take a different view once the temporary injunction application has been dismissed in the earlier suit. The application for temporary injunction in the present suit is barred by principle of resjudicata and is liable to be dismissed. He also submitted that that the court below has not at all considered that the suit is barred by limitation. The present suit has been filed after a period of 8 years from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 18.04.2016 and after a period of about 5 years from the alleged agreement dated 20.02.2019. No reason has been given by the plaintiffs for the delay in filing of the suit. Senior Counsel to support the submissions, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. State of Uttarkhand & Anr. No reason has been given by the plaintiffs for the delay in filing of the suit. Senior Counsel to support the submissions, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. State of Uttarkhand & Anr. v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj, 2017 (9) SCC 579 2. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1103 3. M/s. Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. 2012 (6) SCC 792 4. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, 1992 (1) SCC 719 5. Hazrat Surat Shah, Urdu Education Society v. Abdul Saheb, 1988 (5) SLR 768 6. Kishorsinh Ratasinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corp. 2009 (11) SCC 229 7. Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810 8. Coffee Board v. M/s. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (6) SCC 424 9. Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, 2008 (11) SCC 1 10. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs. & Ors. 2020 (7) SCC 366 11. Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs. v. Ram Bachan Devi & Ors. 2023 AIR SC 3637 6. Mr. R.K. Agarwal Sr. Advocate assisted by counsels appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents supported the impugned order passed by the court below and submitted that the court below after considering the entire material made available has rightly passed the impugned order. Thus, no interference is required to be made by this Court in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents submitted that there was an agreement executed in between the parties on 11.02.2016 wherein the defendant / appellant agreed to purchase the land of the plaintiffs/ respondents measuring 2.18 hectare @ Rs.1,90,00,000/- per bigha i.e. for total consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/-. 8. Just to accommodate the request made by the defendants/appellants- purchasers the sale deed of the subject land was executed and registered on 18.04.2020 mentioning sale consideration as Rs.9,50,00,000/-. The defendant/ appellant in view of the agreement dated 18.04.2016 has made the payment of Rs.9,50,00,000/- and handed over the post dated cheques for the remaining amount of Rs.5 Crores and interest for the intervening period. He further submitted that for the remaining unpaid amount the defendant/appellant has also executed the agreements dated 18.04.2016 and 20.09.2018 (02.03.2019). 9. The defendant/ appellant in view of the agreement dated 18.04.2016 has made the payment of Rs.9,50,00,000/- and handed over the post dated cheques for the remaining amount of Rs.5 Crores and interest for the intervening period. He further submitted that for the remaining unpaid amount the defendant/appellant has also executed the agreements dated 18.04.2016 and 20.09.2018 (02.03.2019). 9. Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs / respondents submitted that the plaintiffs executed an agreement with the defendant/ appellant for selling out their agricultural land for the agreed amount and there was no contract in between them as regards any Affordable Housing Project. Might be that the defendant/ appellant may have proposed to use the land being purchased from the plaintiffs/ respondents for an Affordable Housing Project but since there was no contract in between them with regard to Affordable Housing Project, the provisions of Section 20A and 41 (ha) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT have no bearing on the present case. 10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents further submitted that during the course of arguments, counsel appearing for the defendant/ appellant has stated that the defendant/ appellant is not in a financial position to make the payment as per claims of the plaintiffs/ respondents and therefore, the court below has not committed any error in passing the order of temporary injunction so as to safeguard the interest of the plaintiffs/respondents which is based on sound grounds. 11. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that Order VII Rule 7 CPC does not come in way in seeking relief in the present suit in view of the fact that the earlier suit was only for restraining the defendant/ appellant from dispossessing the plaintiffs/ respondents from the suit property till they are being paid the total agreed sale consideration as per the market value. He submitted that when the earlier suit was filed, since the defendant/appellant was in process of making payment to the plaintiffs/ respondents as they were already issued the post dated cheques and has never denied for not making the payment till that time. He submitted that when the earlier suit was filed, since the defendant/appellant was in process of making payment to the plaintiffs/ respondents as they were already issued the post dated cheques and has never denied for not making the payment till that time. There was no occasion for the plaintiffs/ respondents to make a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed because the cause of action for filing the present suit arose only when the defendant/ appellant failed to make the payment of the sale consideration as per the agreement and the post dated cheques issued by him in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents for making the payment were dishonoured when they were submitted to the Bank for clearance. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents also submitted that in the interest of justice looking to the pleadings of the parties, the Court can mould the relief. He further submitted that the issue of filing of the suit beyond the limitation period is a mixed question of law and fact and same could be decided only after the evidence of the parties. In support of the submissions, Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey, 2006 AIR SC 586 2. Sri M. Suresh v. Smt. Mahadevamma, 2021 ILR (Kar) 3215, delivered by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; 3. Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, 2018 (5) SCC 644 4. Raj Ganesan & Anr. v. Dr. Geeth Ragunath in CRP (PD) No.2284 of 2021 decided on 02.11.2021 delivered by High Court of Madras 5. P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509 6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu, Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2022 12. Considered the submissions made by the Senior Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record of the temporary injunction application received from the court below. 13. The material facts which are to be taken into consideration for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiffs/ respondents purchased the land bearing Khasra No.81 measuring 0.08 hectate, Khasra No. 82/1 measuring 0.01 hectate, Khasra No.83 measuring 0.72 hectare and Khasra No. 95/01 measuring 1.37 hectare i.e. total Khasra 4 measuring 2.18 hectare by registered sale deed dated 24.11.2015 from its original land owner. After the purchase of the subject land by the plaintiffs/ respondents vide registered sale deed dated 24.11.2015, mutation was also opened in their names. 14. The plaintiffs/ respondents and the defendant/ appellant entered into an agreement dated 11.02.2016. The defendant/appellant agreed to purchase the land of the plaintiffs/ respondents measuring 2.18 hectare (8.62 Bigha) @ Rs.1,90,00,000/- per bigha i.e. in total consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/-. Out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/-, Rs. 1 Crore was paid by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiffs/respondents by cash and cheques at the time of the agreement. 15. The plaintiffs/ respondents gave a Power of Attorney to the defendant/ appellant for getting the conversion of the subject land. 16. A sale deed dated 18.04.2016 was executed and registered by the plaintiffs/respondents in the name of the defendant/appellant wherein the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.9,50,00,000/-, whereas the total sale consideration as per the agreement was Rs.16,50,00,000/-. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents that the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.9,50,00,000/- in the registered sale deed in view of the request made by the defendant/appellant so as to have some kind of help or relief in the stamp duty for the defendant/appellant. 17. Another agreement was signed by the parties on 18.04.2016 on the date when the registered sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant/appellant. The relevant terms and conditions of the agreement dated 18.04.2016 is as under:- 18. When the cheques handed over as per agreement dated 18.04.2016 were dishonured and dispute arose in between the parties, another agreement was executed in between the parties on 20.09.2018 (02.03.2019). The relevant terms and conditions of the said agreement are as under:- In the said agreement it was specifically mentioned that in case the cheques given by the defendant/ appellant towards the payment of remaining sale consideration if dishonoured then the plaintiffs/ respondents may proceed for cancellation of the sale deed, stopping the construction and to take back the possession of the land. The aforesaid facts and the documents which are on record clearly speak that there was an agreement signed by the defendant/ appellant for purchase of the plaintiffs’ subject land for total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/- and Rs.9,50,00,000/- was mentioned in the registered sale deed as sale consideration. The aforesaid facts and the documents which are on record clearly speak that there was an agreement signed by the defendant/ appellant for purchase of the plaintiffs’ subject land for total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/- and Rs.9,50,00,000/- was mentioned in the registered sale deed as sale consideration. The fact of total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/- is also verified from the agreements signed by the defendant/ appellant after registration of the sale deed wherein it has been agreed upon to hand over the cheques for the remaining amount in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. 19. In a normal course, the properties are sold on a market rate of the property and the sale deed of such property is got registered at the DLC rate. The market rate of the property is always higher than the DLC rate. The sellers and purchasers do not mention the total agreed sale consideration amount in the registered sale deed because the sale deed can be registered by mentioning the sale consideration at the DLC rate and paying the stamp duty as per the DLC rate. 20. The plaintiffs/ respondents have filed the suit with the relief for cancellation of the sale deed and to take back the possession of the subject land along-with an alternative prayer for recovery of the amount which is due to be paid by the defendant/ appellant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. In view of the aforesaid facts and agreeing with the findings given by the court below that there is a triable issue raised by the plaintiffs/ respondents and this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs/ respondents have a good prima facie case in their favour. 21. The defendant/ appellant after execution of the sale deed in his favour took the possession of the part of the subject property and has started raising construction over the subject land. During the course of arguments, Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant /appellant submitted that the defendant/ appellant has already paid the total sale consideration as mentioned in the registered sale deed and now he is not in a financial position to make the payment of remaining amount claimed by the plaintiffs/ respondents. During the course of arguments, Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant /appellant submitted that the defendant/ appellant has already paid the total sale consideration as mentioned in the registered sale deed and now he is not in a financial position to make the payment of remaining amount claimed by the plaintiffs/ respondents. He further submitted that the defendant/ appellant has borrowed loan from the Banks for raising construction and he is under obligation to repay the loan amount to the Banks and therefore, the order of the court below for depositing the amount which the defendant/appellant is receiving from the purchasers of the flats, is wholly unjustified. The defendant/ appellant after taking possession of the part of the subject land has started raising construction and the plaintiffs / respondents are in possession of the part of the subject land. If the defendant/ appellant is allowed to continue with the construction over the subject land and further to sale out the flats and if ultimately the plaintiffs/ respondents succeed in the suit, it may not be possible to extend actual relief to the plaintiffs/ respondents in view of the fact that the defendant /appellant has stated before this Court that he is not in a financial position to make the payment to the plaintiffs/ respondents. The Court is supposed to keep balance in the interest of both the sides while passing the order of injunction. 22. One of the submissions made by the Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/ appellant is that the Court below has granted relief by deciding the application for temporary injunction beyond the prayer made in the temporary injunction application. In his support the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant /appellant has referred para 16 of the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Bachhaj Nahar (supra) , which is reproduced as under: “ 16. The observation of the High Court that when a plaintiff sets forth the facts and makes a prayer for a particular relief in the suit, he is merely suggesting what the relief should be, and that it is for the court, as a matter of law, to decide upon the relief that should be granted, is not sound. Such an observation may be appropriate with reference to a writ proceeding. Such an observation may be appropriate with reference to a writ proceeding. It may even be appropriate in a civil suit while proposing to grant as relief, a lesser or smaller version of what is claimed. But the said observation is misconceived if it is meant to hold that a civil court may grant any relief it deems fit, ignoring the prayer. It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of action or parties, etc., which require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of rupees one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree for rupees ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of property ‘A’, court cannot grant possession of property ‘B’. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court cannot grant a relief of declaration or possession. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.” He has also referred para 31 of the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (supra) , which is reproduced as under:- “ 31. By no stretch of imagination, in our view, such a declaration of ownership over the suit property and right of easement over a well could be granted by the trial court in the plaintiff's favour because even the plaintiff did not claim title in the suit property on the strength of “adverse possession”. Neither were there any pleadings nor any issue much less evidence to prove the adverse possession on land and for grant of any easementary right over the well. The courts below should have seen that no declaration of ownership rights over the suit property could be granted to the plaintiff on the strength of “adverse possession” (See Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr. The courts below should have seen that no declaration of ownership rights over the suit property could be granted to the plaintiff on the strength of “adverse possession” (See Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr. 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 703 : 2013 (5) Recent Apex Judgements (R.A.J.) 464 : (2014) 1 SCC 669 ). The courts below also should have seen that courts can grant only that relief which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and such relief can be granted only on the pleadings but not beyond it. In other words, courts cannot travel beyond the pleadings for granting any relief. This principle is fully applied to the facts of this case against the plaintiff.” 23. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when there is a claim of Rs.1 lakh by the plaintiff, the relief for Rs.10 lakh cannot be granted. 24. In the case of Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when there was no relief sought for declaration on the basis of the adverse possession, the Courts cannot travel beyond the pleadings for grant of relief. 25. In the present case, the plaintiffs/ respondents have been able to prima facie establish that there was an agreement of sale of the subject land for Rs.16,50,000/-, however, in the registered sale deed it was mentioned as Rs.9,50,00,000/-. There is an evidence available on the record that subsequent to the registered sale deed the defendant/ appellant has signed two agreements for making payment of the remaining amount as mentioned in the initial agreement and has also given the cheques for the same. It is a well settled law that it is the discretion of the Court in the matters of temporary injunction to impart and balance the justice by granting the equitable relief. In the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. (supra) , as cited by the Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents, the Hon’ble Apex in para 41 has observed as under:- “ 41. Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power upon the court to mould relief in a given situation. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power upon the court to mould relief in a given situation. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court, the Tribunal and the National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.” 26. From the facts of the case prima facie it is established that there was an agreement in between the parties for sale of the land of the plaintiffs/ respondents for a total consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/- out of which he has paid Rs.9,50,00,000/- and for the remaining amount he has also signed the agreements and has given the post dated cheques which later-on were dishonoured while submitted for clearing. The defendant/ appellant has also shown his inability to make the payment of the balance amount in view of some financial constraints. In the totality of the aforesaid facts and more particularly the fact that the defendant /appellant has already raised huge construction by constructing the flats over the part of the subject land, it may not be in the fitness of the things to pass a temporary injunction restraining the defendant/ appellant from raising further construction. However, looking to the relief sought in the plaint, the Court below has ordered directing the defendant/ appellant to deposit the amount received by him after selling out the flats with the Court. The Court below was justified in ordering so because in case the plaintiffs/ respondents succeed in the suit and in the meantime, the defendant /appellant completes his construction and sale out his flats and further his inability to make the payment as shown by him, it may not be possible to satisfy the order or decree, if passed in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. 27. The order of granting any relief moulding the prayer made in the plaint or in the application for temporary injunction, always depends upon the facts of the case. Sometimes, the relief could be moulded so as to impart substantial justice. It is well settled law that temporary injunction is the discretion of the Court. 28. 27. The order of granting any relief moulding the prayer made in the plaint or in the application for temporary injunction, always depends upon the facts of the case. Sometimes, the relief could be moulded so as to impart substantial justice. It is well settled law that temporary injunction is the discretion of the Court. 28. The another issue raised by the Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant /appellant is that the provisions of Section 20A read with clause 5(j) of the Schedule and Section 41(ha) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT provides that no injunction can be granted in the matters related to infrastructure project or affordable housing project. Section 20A and section 41(ha) relates to the provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project i.e. affordable housing project. 29. In the present case, the contract in between the parties is in regard to sale of an agricultural land. The plaintiffs/ respondents have agreed to sale the agricultural land owned by them and the defendant/ appellant has agreed to purchase the said land for total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/-. None of the terms and conditions of the agreement or the sale deed relate to any infrastructure project or affordable housing project. The defendant /appellant may have proposed for an affordable housing project after purchasing the land from the plaintiffs/ respondents but there was no any such condition in the agreement or registered sale deed. Since in the agreements and registered sale deeds executed in between the parties, there is no mention of any contract as regards any infrastructure project or affordable housing project, therefore the restrictions for grant of temporary injunction given under sections 20A and 41(ha) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT are not at all applicable in the present case. 30. The another issue which has been raised by the Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/ appellant is that the temporary injunction could not be granted when the prayer made in the plaint can be compensated in money. As per the agreement between the parties, the total sale consideration amount agreed was Rs.16,50,00,000/-, out of which the defendant/ appellant has paid Rs.9,50,00,000/- and for remaining sale consideration amount, the defendant/ appellant has already issued the cheques twice in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents which were later-on dishonoured when they were forwarded for clearing. As per the agreement between the parties, the total sale consideration amount agreed was Rs.16,50,00,000/-, out of which the defendant/ appellant has paid Rs.9,50,00,000/- and for remaining sale consideration amount, the defendant/ appellant has already issued the cheques twice in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents which were later-on dishonoured when they were forwarded for clearing. During the course of arguments, Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/ appellant has also shown the inability that the defendant /appellant is not in a position to make the payment as he is under financial burden of the loans for the project. 31. If the defendant/ appellant is allowed to raise the construction and sale out the flats which he has constructed, third party (purchasers) without any condition then tomorrow it may not be possible to grant any actual relief to the plaintiffs/ respondents in case they ultimately succeed in the plaint. So for grant of relief as prayed for in the plaint, if the plaintiffs/ respondents have been able to prima facie satisfy that they have a good case then it is for the Court to see and ensure that the plaintiffs/ respondents could be actually granted the relief in case they ultimately succeed in the suit. 32. Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant /appellant has also submitted that the agreement as regards of which the plaintiffs/ respondents have filed the suit, is not enforceable by law. He has also referred Section 269 ST of the Income Tax Act. He referred the provisions of the Income Tax Act in view of the alleged transaction of more than Rs.2 lakh in cash. In the present case, since for the remaining amount beyond the sale consideration as mentioned in the registered sale deed, the defendant/appellant has twice issued the cheques which lateron were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the Bank Accounts of the defendant/ appellant. The facts of the case, as discussed in the foregoing paras, prima facie establish that the total consideration as agreed between the parties was Rs.16,50,00,000/- and in case of non-payment of the remaining amount, the plaintiffs/ respondents can certainly approach the court and the issues are to be decided by the trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties. 33. One more issue was also raised that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents is beyond the limitation period for cancellation of the sale deed. 34. 33. One more issue was also raised that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents is beyond the limitation period for cancellation of the sale deed. 34. In the plaint the plaintiffs/ respondents have categorically averred that initially when the defendant/ appellant dispossessed them from the part of the subject land which was in their possession without even making the complete payment of the sale consideration amount as agreed in the agreement dated 11.02.2016, they filed the suit for injunction as they were in hope that the defendant/ appellant will make payment of the remaining sale consideration also. As regards the payment of remaining sale consideration is concerned, the defendant/appellant has also signed the agreements dated 18.04.2016 and 20.09.2018 (02.03.2019) and has also given the post dated cheques twice which were like the assurance by the defendant/ appellant for making the remaining sale consideration amount apart from the sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed. The plaintiffs/ respondents have also stated that when on 15.06.2024 the defendant/ appellant again threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs/ respondents from a part of the subject land without making the payment of the remaining sale consideration amount for which the defendant/ appellant has already issued the cheques and were dishonoured. It was specifically averred that the actual cause of action for filing the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction arose in view of the threat given by the defendant/ appellant for dispossessing the plaintiffs/ respondents without making the payment of the remaining sale consideration. 35. It is well settled law that the issue of limitation in the suit proceedings is a mixed question of fact and law. The limitation period starts from the plaint where cause of action arose. Now it is to be considered by the Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties that what is the actual point from where the cause of action arose for the legal suit proceedings. Hence, the limitation can only be considered after recording of the evidence of the parties on that issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ghewarchand & Ors. v. M/s. Mahendra Singh & Ors. 2018 (10) SCC 588 has observed in para 21 as under:- “21. Hence, the limitation can only be considered after recording of the evidence of the parties on that issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ghewarchand & Ors. v. M/s. Mahendra Singh & Ors. 2018 (10) SCC 588 has observed in para 21 as under:- “21. In order to decide the question of limitation as to whether the suit is filed time or not, the Court is mainly required to see the plaint allegations and how the plaintiff has pleaded the accrual of cause of action for filing the suit. In this case, we find that the plaintiffs satisfied this requirement to bring their suit within limitation.” 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India & Anr., (2020) 17 SCC 260 has observed in paras 12 and 22 as under:- “12. From the averments in the plaint, if read as a whole, it would appear that the assertion of the appellant is that the respondents had extended financial facility with effect from 1.4.1997 till October, 2007, but somewhere in the month of July, 2000, the appellant noticed that the respondents were unilaterally charging interest/commission at the rate of Rs.4 per thousand rupees on local cheques and drafts in an arbitrary manner in violation of the assurance given to the appellant. Immediately thereafter, the appellant wrote to the respondent-Bank vide letter dated 21.7.2000 for taking corrective steps in the matter. Then correspondence ensued between the parties in that regard and the appellant was assured by the Regional Office of the respondent- Bank that an appropriate decision will be taken at the earliest. The relevant assertion in that regard is found in paragraph 11 of the plaint, wherein it is mentioned that the Assistant General Manager -Shri P.S. Bawa of Regional Office-B, Delhi, vide letter dated 9.7.2001 informed the appellant that comments from the concerned Branch Office have been invited and appropriate decision will be taken on its representation as early as possible. Thereafter, on 8.5.2002, the Senior Manager of the respondent-Bank informed the appellant that the cheques were being purchased at the prevailing rates; which plea, according to the appellant, was to deviate from the position stated by the Assistant General Manager of Regional Office in his letter dated 9.7.2001 referred to earlier. Thereafter, on 8.5.2002, the Senior Manager of the respondent-Bank informed the appellant that the cheques were being purchased at the prevailing rates; which plea, according to the appellant, was to deviate from the position stated by the Assistant General Manager of Regional Office in his letter dated 9.7.2001 referred to earlier. Resultantly, the appellant wrote to the officials of the respondent- Bank vide letters dated 12.7.2002, 22.9.2002 and 24.3.2003. 22. It is well established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further, the factum of suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. In the present case, the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the Regional Office and the Regional Office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8.5.2002 followed by another letter dated 19.9.2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent-Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent-Bank. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28.11.2003 and again on 7.1.2005 and then filed the suit on 23.2.2005, is also invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Whether this plea taken by the appellant is genuine and legitimate, would be a mixed question of fact and law, depending on the response of the respondents.” Hence, the issue of limitation being the mixed question of facts and law is to be decided after the evidence of the parties. 37. Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant has also raised an issue that the defendant/ appellant has earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction, which is pending for adjudication and now has filed the new suit for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction. 37. Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant has also raised an issue that the defendant/ appellant has earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction, which is pending for adjudication and now has filed the new suit for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction. The present suit is barred in view of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC which speaks that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of cause of action. Senior Counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs/ respondents have filed a suit earlier for injunction and they could have included the prayer for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration in the relevant suit. Once the plaintiffs/ respondents omit such relief in the earlier suit, now they cannot file a fresh suit for the reliefs which they omitted earlier. 38. Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs / respondents submitted that earlier the suit was filed for injunction in view of the fact that that the defendant/ appellant has already signed the agreements for making the payment of remaining sale consideration as per the initial agreement dated 11.02.2016. However, when the defendant/ appellant tried to dispossess the plaintiffs/ respondents from a part of the subject land without making the payment, they filed the suit for injunction only for the reason that they were under an assurance by the defendant/ appellant for making remaining sale consideration and for that the defendant /appellant has already issued the cheques twice which lateron were dishonoured. Looking to the over facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not convinced with the objections and submissions made on behalf of the defendant/ appellant. 39. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, the Court finds no ground to interfere in the findings and the observations given by the court below. The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs/ respondents have been able to satisfy on all the three parameters for grant of temporary injunction in their favour, which are- prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 40. The misc. appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 41. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any also stand dismissed. 42. 40. The misc. appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 41. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any also stand dismissed. 42. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Court forthwith.