IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.623 of 2010 Sri Jiwachh Prasad Sinha, S/o. Late Saryug Prasad Sinha, Resident of D – 71, Peoples Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. – Kankarbagh, District – Patna. …………….. Plaintiff – Appellant. Versus Sri Samar Ghosh, S/o. Late A.K. Ghosh, Resident of Rejendra Path, P.S. – Gandhi Maidan, District – Patna. ……………….. Defendant – Respondent. ----------- 02/ 12.08.2010 This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Sub-Judge – II, Patna in Title Suit No. 202 of 2007 by which the petition for injunction has been rejected. The facts for the determination of this miscellaneous appeal admittedly are that the plaintiff appellant filed the suit for specific performance of contract with regard to the multi storied building and it has been asserted that the respondent admits the contract but not abiding by and is determined to sell the portion of the building to different persons and changing the feature of the suit property and the plaintiff filed the injunction petition which was rejected that no prima facie case is made out against the plaintiff and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss does not lie in favour of the plaintiff appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant 2 contended that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant has not been denied by the defendant rather it has been admitted and hence the plaintiff will have irreparable loss if the defendant sells the property to different persons as the plaintiff will have difficulty in executing the deed if he gets the decree. However, it is admitted that there is an agreement for sale between the parties. However, the agreement for sale does not give a right to the plaintiff with regard to the property and as the plaintiff can only get a right over the property if he succeeds in the suit for specific performance of contract and gets the sale deed executed on the basis of the same. However, taking into consideration the balance of convenience and irreparable loss if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit he may get a decree of eviction even against the subsequent purchaser by making them a party and pursuing the suit against them and even get damage. However, if in the long litigation the plaintiff lose the case and if the injunction is granted then his loss cannot be compensated and hence neither the balance of convenience nor irreparable loss lies in favour of the plaintiff and hence 3 I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order. However, if the plaintiff succeeds and he does not get the suit property then he may get the damages for non performance of the contract even getting the decree for specific performance of contract and he can well be compensated and hence I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous appeal and the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)