1. ' The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of the agreement of purchase of plot in suit entered by the plaintiff with defendant No,1, on 23-8-1986. He also claims damages in sum of Rs,50,00,000. Plaintiff has moved this application under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., praying therein, that till the pendency of the suit, the defendants be restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, mortgaging or parting with the possession of Plot No,FL/13.
2. ' The plaintiffs claim is based on the agreement copy of which has been produced as Annexure 'A' to the plaint. It is in fact acknowledgment receipt of Rs,1,00,000 paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as part payment in respect of plot in question. It further provides certain conditions for the sale and also mentioned the total value of the sale price to be Rs,25,04,700. This receipt/agreement provides, that Rs,4,00,000 were to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before 1-9-1986 when a proper agreement shall be executed between the parties. Admittedly, this amount has not been paid by the plaintiff and consequently no formal agreement appears to have been executed between the parties. By a letter dated 5-10-1986 the defendants cancelled the transaction because of failure of the plaintiff to pay the agreed amount. In. this letter the defendants have referred to clause (7) of the receipt/agreement which provides, 'in case the plaintiff failed to make the payment of the balance sale consideration on the above specified dates, the transaction shall stand cancelled and amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendants shall stand forfeited. As pointed above admittedly the plaintiff failed to pay this amount of Rs,4,00,000 and has only paid Rs,1,00,000 out of sale price of more than Rs,25,00,000. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be said to have good prima facie case to entitle him to obtain temporary injunctions only on payment of such paltry amount out of the sale price. Further more, the plaintiffs have themselves assessed the damages because of cancellation of agreement and have prayed for decree of damages of Rs,50,00,000. As such, from pleadings of the plaintiffs themselves the loss allegedly suffered by them is not irreparable and can be assessed in terms of money. As such in my opinion, no case is made out for the issuance of temporary injunction. The application is consequently dismissed and interim stay already granted stand vacated.