H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is directed against the order dated 06.12.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dholpur (for short 'the Appellate Court'), whereby the Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff - respondent, restrained the defendant -appellants from alienating or transferring the land bearing Khasra Nos. 231 and 232 measuring 5 Bighas 14 Biswas situated at Village Sanda, Tehsil Dholpur, which is subject matter of the suit for specific performance of contract.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the order impugned. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the period prescribed in the agreement to sale is the essence of contract and it was the plaintiff -respondents who failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of agreement for getting the document registered and getting the sale transaction completed and, therefore, the document agreement to sale is now not enforceable. The fact that the suit was filed way back in the year 1999 whereas the appeal was decided on 06.12.2001 and for almost 6 years the order was effective as there had not been any interim stay or direction and if the defendant -appellants are permitted to alienate or transfer the suit property, it will create complications and multiplicity of the suit on transfer and thereafter further transfer, possibility of which cannot be ruled out. It will amount to multiplicity of the suit and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned would cause irreparable loss or injury to the defendant -appellants.
(3.) IN the circumstances, therefore, in my view the Appellate Court was justified in restraining the defendant -appellants from alienating or transferring the subject land which is subject matter of the suit.;