1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 98/2010 (Smt. Shobha Babulal Banmare and 7 others vs. Sau. Uma Sanjay Maddamwar and 3 others) ...................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Mr.S.S.Ghate, counsel for the appellants Mr.K.R.Lule, counsel for respondents ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2010. This appeal challenges the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, in Special Civil Suit No. 48/2009, allowing the application Exh.5 filed by the plaintiffs and restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or creating third party interest in the suit property till the decision of the suit. Hence, the original defendants are in appeal. 2] The trial Court has recorded a finding that there exists a prima facie dispute as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract or that there was a breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff. The existence of agreement is admitted and hence the trial Court has held that the prima facie case is made out. It has further been held 2 that if the injunction is not granted then it would create multiplicity of proceedings & complications and cause irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. 3] Shri Ghate, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that the total land in respect of which the agreement dated 27.12.2001 was entered into admeasures 6.74 hectares and the consideration was of Rs.40,00,000/-. The plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-, as a consequence of which, a sale deed in respect of 6 acres of land has already been executed. He further submits that the plaintiff has failed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- and therefore, the sale deed in respect of 4 hectare of 31 R of land comprised in Survey No. 57/1 has not been executed. He further submits that if the plaintiff had paid the balance consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- then the bonafides of the defendants were apparent that they could have executed the sale deed as they had already parted with the land admeasuring 6 acres. Hence, the trial Court ought to have seen that no prima facie case has been made out and it was breach on the part of the plaintiffs. 4] The trial Court has considered that there exists a prima facie dispute as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether it was the plaintiff who has committed breach of the contract. This dispute is 3 required to be gone into on merits and it is a matter of evidence. In view of this, pending the decision of the suit, permitting the defendants to transfer the property or to create third party interest would create further complications and multiplicity of proceedings. It has further been held that an irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs if the ownership of the property is transferred or third party interest is created in the property. Hence, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, any transfer pending the decision of the suit would be hit by lis-pendence and hence, even on that count, the order passed by the trial Court to avoid further complications and multiplicity of proceedings cannot be faulted with. 5] In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit