records prima facie do not disclose any act of readiness
and willingness on the part of the appellant from
February, 2004 till March, 2006 i.e., till the date of
issuance of notice demanding the respondents to execute
the sale deed in respect of the suit property and to
perform the obligations on the part of the appellant
under the alleged agreement for sale of the property.
Obviously therefore, no prima facie case was made out
for grant of ad-interim relief in the matter and hence
no fault can be found with the impugned order. Besides,
it is the case of the appellant that the property was
sought to be purchased for development. Further that,
already there are third party rights created in favour
of third parties by execution of the deed which has been
duly registered. That apart, the impugned order is
merely an ad-interim relief and the notice of motion is
yet to be decided and the parties will have opportunity
to place on record the materials in support of their
rival contentions before the learned single Judge on the
matter in controversy. In the absence of any prima
facie case being made out, we do not find any case for
interference in the impugned order in the appeal. The
appeal, therefore, fails and is rejected.
