' SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-11-2004 whereby the trial Court dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction sought by the appellant.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 19-11-2002 in respect of the property in dispute. It is contended in the plaint that the total consideration agreed between the parties was Rs.1,30,05,000, out of which Rs.35,00,000 were .Paid as earnest money. The balance amount was required to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. It was contended that the respondents had failed to make available the original `Fard' or the property. Hence, the sale-deed could not be executed and now the respondents are resiling from the agreement. Along with the plaint an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The respondents entered appearance and contested the suit as well as the application for grant of temporary injunction. It is contended that the appellant failed to honour his obligations under the agreement and had in fact tendered a cheque towards the balance consideration which was dishonoured. Therefore, the sale-deed could not executed or transaction completed. The trial Court after hearing the parties vide the impugned order dated 25- 11-2004 was pleased to dismiss the application for temporary injunction.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the transaction could not be completed in time on account of the failure of the respondents to make available the requisite original `Fard' of the property in dispute while the learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the contentions raised by the appellant and has further stated that this appeal has become infructuous as the property in fact has already been transferred to a third party which fact is not admitted by the appellant on whose behalf it has been alleged that the entire property in dispute has not been transferred till date.
5. The agreement between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that a cheque towards the balance total consideration was given by the appellant to the respondents on or about the date fixed for the completion of the transaction. It is also an admitted fact that the said cheque was dishonoured on presentation. In the above circumstances, the trial Court has rightly concluded that no prima facie case exists in favour of the appellant and his contention that the delay was occasioned by any act or omission of the respondents has been rightly discarded. Had the formalities not been completed there would be no reason to tender the cheque. Furthermore, admittedly the property in dispute or at least or a substantial part thereof has already been transferred.
6. In the above circumstances the appellant is not entitled to temporary injunction. Therefore, this appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.