Delay and dishonor of consideration cheques disentitle a plaintiff from seeking equitable relief of temporary injunction.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance based on two notarized agreements to sell dated 26.07.2021 and 29.09.2021 regarding agricultural land in Beawar

The appellant paid an advance of Rs. 21,00,000, but subsequent post-dated cheques amounting to Rs. 3,79,00,000 were dishonored due to insufficient funds

Consequently, the defendants-respondents cancelled the agreement via notice on 15.01.2022

Despite this cancellation, the appellant waited until 19.07.2025—over three years—to file the suit, during which time third-party rights were created as the property was sold to respondents No. 7 and 8

The Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s temporary injunction (TI) application on 27.01.2026

1. Whether the plaintiff-appellant established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to warrant a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit

2. Whether the conduct of the plaintiff, specifically regarding the delay in filing the suit and the dishonor of payment cheques, disentitles her to equitable relief

The court applied Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing interim injunctions, emphasizing the three-pillar test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss

The court relied on Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, which mandates that TI is an equitable relief requiring the plaintiff to approach the court with "clean hands"

The court invoked principles from Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi regarding the impact of delay and the acquisition of third-party rights on discretionary relief

The court applied Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., establishing that a party's conduct must be free from blame for equitable interference

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the doctrine of lis pendens

The court found that the appellant failed to meet the threshold for interim relief due to her conduct and laches; the prima facie case was weakened by the admitted dishonor of substantial cheques (Rs. 3.79 Crores) and the lack of explanation for the failure to maintain sufficient funds, which indicated a lack of readiness and willingness

The court highlighted an "inordinate delay" of over three years between the cancellation of the agreement (2022) and the filing of the suit (2025)

Applying Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP, the court reasoned that such delay, coupled with the intervening creation of third-party rights, tilts the balance of convenience in favor of the defendants

The court concluded that because the appellant was responsible for the circumstances complained of, she was not entitled to equitable protection

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's order dated 27.01.2026, refusing the temporary injunction, but directed respondents to disclose any further sale to ensure transparency under the doctrine of lis pendens