1 ao148.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 148 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10318 OF 2011 Atul s/o Manohar Mule, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Mule Niwas, India Nagar, Latur, Dist. Latur, & another. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Ganpati s/o Bapu Shinde, Age: 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. India Nagar, Latur, Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for appellants. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 26-08-2011 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit NO. 250 of 2010. 2 ao148.11 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, agreement to sell was executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. Initially, interim injunction was granted. An amount is received by the respondent and to that extent, receipt is also passed by the respondent. The respondent failed to take permission as per the terms of the agreement to sell for measurement. There was no any lapse or fault on the part of the appellant. The respondent was trying to avoid the execution of the sale deed and therefore, the suit is filed. During the pendency of the suit, if the interest of the appellant is not protected, it will cause irreparable loss to the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants invited my attention to Para-10 of the impugned judgment and submitted that, reliance placed by the trial Court on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Kachhi Properties vs. 3 ao148.11 Ganpatrao S. Kadam, reported in 2010(5) Bom.C.R. 43, is in ignorance of the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Pralhad vs. Sitabai reported in 2011(4) Mh.L.J. 137 and therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, mere protection under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would not suffice the purpose in the instant case unless the respondent is restrained from getting third party rights in the suit property. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, this Appeal from Order deserves to be allowed. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. From perusal of the copy of agreement to sell, it is not in dispute that, the said agreement to sell is not a registered document. It is true that, for collateral purposes, registration of such a document is also not necessary. However, the respondent has contended before the trial Court that, as per agreement, 4 ao148.11 parties were suppose to complete all steps on or before 30-07-2011. The respondent, therefore, issued notice on 17-08-2010 to the appellant herein asking him to pay remaining consideration within 15 days. Counsel for the appellant though strenuously contended that, the said notice was replied, in my opinion, even as per the terms of the agreement to sell, the amount towards the measurement fees was also to be paid by the appellant. However, it was not paid by the appellant. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by the parties, has taken a reasonable and possible view. The observations of the trial Court in Para-9 and other foregoing paragraphs of the impugned judgment are in consonance with the material placed on record. Even in case of Kachhi Properties vs. Ganpatrao S. Kadam (supra), this Court has observed that, unless it is demonstrated that the rule of lis-pendents is 5 ao148.11 inadequate to protect plaintiff's interest, normally Court should not invoke the powers under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In the instant case, it is the case of the defendant that, he want to sell the property to some other purchaser and the appellants herein have not abided by the terms of the agreement to sell. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. It is also relevant to mention that, total consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- was agreed between the parties and the amount of Rs.1,01,000/- is paid by the appellant herein. 7. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable view. Hence, the Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits and same stands rejected. Consequently, Civil Application also stands rejected. 6 ao148.11 . Any observations made in this order or in the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court would not come in the way of the appellant herein while prosecuting the suit pending before the trial Court. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11