The Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. vs. KS Infraspace LLP Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 410 observed: The grant of relief in a suit for specific performance is itself a discretionary remedy. A plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance will therefore have to establish a strong primafacie case on basis of undisputed facts. The conduct of the plaintiff will also be a very relevant consideration for purposes of injunction. The discretion at this stage has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
In Suresh Jain vs Tejprakash Pandya, the impugned order denied temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiff did not hold physical possession of the suit property. Allowing the appeal, the Apex Court observed: “We must indeed at any rate hold that the reasoning of the High Court that title did not pass to the plaintiff can only be held to be an untenable premise for denying temporary injunction. We find that it is on this premise viz., that the appellate Court did not consider the aforesaid aspects that the High Court has proceeded to interfere in the matter. The principles which should govern the grant or refusal of temporary injunction in a suit including a suit for specific performance should have been borne in mind.”
In an early decision, (Rama Devi And Ors. vs Sanganer Co-Operative Housing AIR 1987 Raj 143, the Rajasthan High Court had observed thus: There is no bar under C.P.C. which can be invoked in support of the proposition that the plaintiff suing for specific performance cannot obtain any injunction whatsoever and since there is no bar in the CPC, an application for grant of temporary injunction is solely governed either by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC or by the inherent powers u/s. 151, CPC. Injunction is a preventive relief and if the respondent is permitted to sell the plot of land to third party during the pendency of the suit and the third party may make constructions, it will obviously cause further litigation and complication.”