' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant on 12-10-2002 filed a suit for the Specific performance against the respondents claiming that the respondents through an agreement dated 30-8-2002, had agreed to sell the suit-land measuring 8 Kanals and 10 Marlas, situated in Mauza Shajpal, Lahore Cantt. To the appellant for a total consideration of Rs,80,43,000, out of which, a sum of Rs,5,00,000 was paid to the respondents as an advance/earnest money, whereas on the balance payment, respondents were obliged to execute the sale-deed by a target date i.e, 15-9-2002, but the respondents failed. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the appellant made efforts to seek the demarcation of the property; the payment was endeavoured to be made to the respondents; stamp papers were purchased for the execution of the sale-deed; the price of the property was got assessed from the Cantonment Board for the purpose of the payment of the cantonment fee; pay order was also prepared in the name of the respondents, but the respondents failed to finalize the transaction, hence the suit. The respondent No,1, denied the execution of the agreement to sell, as he is not signatory thereto, but the other respondents admitted the same, as also the receipt of the part consideration of Rs,5,00,000, but they took up the defence that it is the appellant, who failed to perform his part of the agreement by a target date i.e 15-9-2002 and resultantly, they are not bound to perform the agreement.
2. Along with suit, the plaintiff/ appellant also moved an application for the grant of temporary injunction, seeking restraint against the respondents from alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever; however, this application was subsequently withdrawn to the extent of respondent No,1, but pressed for the other respondents. Anyhow, learned trial Court, vide order dated 9-3-2005, has dismissed the application holding that the appellant has failed to prove a prima facie case in his favour and his rights are also protected under the rule of lis pendens. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant state that the protection of lis pendens is no ground to refuse an injunction; it is further stated that the appellant has proved a prima facie case i.e, about the execution of the agreement; the payment of the advance consideration, which otherwise is admitted by respondents Nos.2 to 5; he was/is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, because of the overt steps taken by him in the direction, as mentioned in the plaint, therefore, the refusal of the injunction to the appellant on the ground that he has failed to establish a prima facie case is misconceived. Reliance in this behalf has been placed upon the judgments reported as Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Hanif and others (PLD 1990 Lahore 82), Mrs. Parveen Begum v. Raja Muhammad Sarwar Khan (PLD 1956 W.P. Karachi 521) and Mst. Nazir Begum and 2 others v. Muhammad Tahir and another (2005 CLC 925).
3. Confronted with the above, the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a legal notice got issued by the appellant, to argue that all the steps mentioned in the plaint and the efforts made by the appellant to seek the enforcement of the agreement are not specifically mentioned therein, thus it means that the entire story is the result of an afterthought, therefore, it shall have the reflection upon the conduct of the appellant, who according to the counsel, shall be deemed having not approached the Court with clean hands, resultantly, the equitable relief cannot be granted to him. It is also stated that the stamp paper purchased for the purpose of sale-deed is also of lesser amount than the required.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the agreement to sell is admitted by respondents Nos.2 to 5; receipt of an amount of Rs,5,00,000 as an advance money is also admitted; there is no overt act on part of the respondents that they ever have cancelled the agreement to sell such as by service of any notice. Thus even if the appellant has not mentioned in his legal notice about the said steps, but has prima facie proved those in the matter, no presumption for such omission can be raised against him. It is prima facie established on the record that the assessm ent of the property for the purpose of the payment of the requisite fee, was procured by the appellant from the Cantonment Board; he purchased the stamp paper for the sale-deed, may be a bit deficient in the value; pay order of the consideration was got prepared. Obviously these steps are in the positive direction and to impute at this stage that the appellant was not ready and willing shall be some-what a harsh view and this question is yet to be resolved through evidence.
' In the light of above, I am of the considered view that the appellant has prima facie proved his case, the balance of convenience and the rule of irreparable loss also tilts in his favour and thus to prevent further complication and multiplicity of the proceedings, it is expedient that the respondents Nos.2 to 5, should be restrained from further alienating the property but subject to the condition of the deposit of the balance consideration to the respondents i.e, Rs,53,53,666; resultantly, by setting aside the impugned order, the injunction in favour of the appellant to the extent of defendants Nos.2 to 5, is granted restraining them from alienating the property, and the appellant minus consideration amount falling to the share of respondent No,1, against whom, the application has been withdrawn, which comes to Rs,21,89,234; is directed to deposit the payment of the balance amount of consideration of Rs,53,53,666 with the trial Court within a period of one month. However, if the amount is not so deposited, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.