TIEN YUING LEE Versus FEROZUDDIN

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ This appeal is directed against an order dated 25‑3‑1987 passed by a learned Single Judge in Suit No.816/86 filed by the respondents for specific performance of a sale agreement in respect of the suit property. Alongwith the suit respondents also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for an ad interim injunction for restraining the defendants /present appellants from disposing of the suit property. The above application was opposed by the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge by his order under appeal granted the injunction subject to the condition that the respondents shall deposit the balance of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.59,00,000 in the Court within three (3) weeks. The respondents had filed an appeal namely H . C . A . 49 of 1987 against the above condition which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in limine by an order, dated 29‑4‑1987.

2. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid order, dated 25‑3‑1987 passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. In support of the above appeal Mr. Nisarally, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that the conduct of the respondents were such that they were not entitled to an ad interim injunction as apparently the breach was on their part and there was no default on the part of the appellants.

4. Without expressing our view on the merits of the above contention, it may be observed that the learned Judge has exercised discretion properly in the matter by putting the respondents to terms A of depositing of the balance amount of Rs.59,00,000, failure to comply with the above condition will entail re‑calling of the above ad interim order.

5. We see no merits in this appeal, it is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./T‑24/K Appeal dismissed.