public at large. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 after accepting the entire consideration amount handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Defendant No.3 and 4. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also admitted that as the Plaintiffs failed and neglected to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale dated 11/05/2009, therefore, they sold the suit property to the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 by registered sale deed. Without considering these facts, the Trial Court, in paragraph 12 of the impugned order observed that if an injunction is refused, the Plaintiffs may deprive of their rights to purchase the suit property on the basis of the agreement. The Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 11/11/2011 after giving public notice in news papers. Moreover, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 also accepted money from prospective purchasers. If, at this stage, an injunction order is passed against Defendant Nos.3 and 4 restraining them from carrying out any construction activities, irreparable loss, harm and injury will be caused to them. But at the same time, if they wish, they can develop the suit property at their risk, subject to outcome of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement.
