1 ao1364 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1364 OF 2010 Suresh Keshavrao Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Ayyajuddin Mainuddin Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.V.Walawalkar,Sr.Advocate with Ms Yogita Mayekar for the appellants None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 25,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29th January 1998 executed by the 1st to 13th respondents in their favour. Under the agreement, the price was fixed at Rs.25,55,000/-. According to the case of the plaintiffs, apart from earnest money of Rs.50,000/-, on 29th October 1998, the appellants have paid a sum of Rs.7,99,995/- to the 1st to 13th respondents. 2 By the impugned Judgment and order, the learned trial judge has rejected the application for temporary injunction made by the appellants for restraining the defendant no.16 from carrying on construction on the suit plot and from creating third party rights. 3 The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the agreement itself provides that the sale deed was to be executed after the 1st to 13th respondents make out a marketable title. He pointed out 2 ao1364 that the 1st to 13th respondents entered into development agreement with the 14th respondent and there was another transaction in October 2005 in favour of the 15th respondent. He pointed out that the said respondents got indemnity bond executed from the 1st to 13th respondents as they were aware that the appellants may claim right in respect of the suit property. He pointed out that on 23rd January 2007, the defendant nos.1,5,8,11,12 and 13 executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant no.16. He submitted that the said sale deed was executed during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the purchaser under the sale deed viz.16th respondent will have to be injuncted from developing the property and from creating third party rights. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. For enforcing the agreement dated 29th January 1998, the suit was filed in the year 2006. Except from making a vague averment that after the agreement was executed, the appellants requested the 1st to 13th respondents to execute a sale deed, the appellants have not set out as to what steps were taken by them up to the year 2006. There is no correspondence exchanged between the parties. On plain reading of the plaint, prima facie, there appears to be an inordinate delay in approaching the Court for seeking discretionary relief of specific performance. 5 Though the impugned order may not be worded properly, considering the delay involved, there was justification in declining to grant discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction. 6 It is obvious that the sale deed executed in favour of the 16th respondent will be hit by the principles of lis pendence. It is also obvious that creation of third 3 ao1364 party rights or development work carried out by the 16th respondent will be subject to final result of the suit. 7 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out out. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application no.1678 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 8 It is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court as well as this Court are for limited purpose of considering the prayer for interim relief and the suit will be expeditiously decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. JUDGE