- (1.)THIS appeal challenges judgement and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajkot in Special Civil Suit No.120 of 2008 rejecting the application for interim injunction Exh.5 in the suit for specific performance.
(2.)THE short facts of the case are that defendant respondent executed a Satakhat in respect of the suit land for village Hadmatiya (Junction), tal. Padadhari being Revenue Survey No.65 paiki 1 in favour of plaintiff on 01/08/2007. As per case of plaintiff, the defendant had executed a writing before executing a Satakhat in favour of plaintiff on 26/06/2007 in which it is decided to sell the land at the price of Rs.5,40,000/- per Acre. THE plaintiff submits that that he has paid Rs.51,000/- as earnest money and remaining amount was to be paid within 60 days from the date of the Satakhat. THE plaintiff says that the suit property was purchased at consideration of Rs.28 Lacs and plaintiff paid Rs.8,00,000/- and is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of consideration, but the defendant has denied to execute the sale deed, which has given rise to the interim injunction application.
On the other hand say of learned Advocate for the defendant is that the plaintiff is doing the business of land broker and had failed to pay the remaining amount and is not in a position to pay the amount and therefore the writing would automatically stand cancelled. As per the said writing, plaintiff had to pay the remaining amount on or before 01/10/2007 but he has failed to comply with the said condition and therefore no such interference would be made at the hands of this Court.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned order passed below Exh.5, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error which would warrant any interference. The Court below has considered the writings being a legal and valid document. The plaintiff was required to pay the remaining amount within a period of sixty days but as the plaintiff was failed, he issued notice to the defendant, which shows that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to make the payment of outstanding amount as per clause No.3 of the Satakhat. The Court below has observed in paragraph No.9 as under: 9......There is no prima facie case to show that defendant is likely to alienate property. Even any transaction by defendant in respect of the said property will be binding as per the result of the suit.

(3.)SO far as the reliance placed by the learned Advocate on the decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 808 is concerned, the ratio laid down therein would not be applicable to the present case, in view of the facts of the present case as per Clause -3 balance amount was required to be paid within sixty days.
I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court and conclusions arrived at and holding that prima-facie case is not in favour of the plaintiff as well as the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff. The view taken by the Court below is just and proper. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.