*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7050/2008 Shankar Parappa Halingale. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Chitamani Parappa Halingale (decd.) and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Rahul P. Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.M.Sabrad, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1(A) and 1(B). ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 16th November, 2009. PC:- 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The present Petitioner is the original Decree Holder/ Plaintiff in whose favour the decree has been passed on 28.01.2005 declaring that the Plaintiff has preferential right to acquire the rights of the original Defendant No.1 (Defendants Nos.1-A and 1-B) in the suit property at the current market rate. Having found that the Plaintiff has preferential right to acquire the interest of the Defendants Nos.1-A and 1-B, the said Defendants were restrained from alienating their interest in the suit property. The parties were also permitted to move the Court under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act for fixation of the market price to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants Nos.1-A and 1-B. Acting pursuant to the *2* decree, the Plaintiff moved an application under Section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Trial Court fixed the market value of the suit property to be Rs.3,00,000/-. For coming to the conclusion touching the market value of the suit property, the Trial Court has placed reliance on an admission given by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.137/1983 wherein he admitted the market value of the suit property to be Rs.3 Lac and had made an offer to purchase the interest of the Defendant No.1 at that price. The Petitioner/ Plaintiff could not explain the said admission contrary to what is claimed by the Respondents. The Petitioner/ Plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs.3 Lac within a period of 60 days from the date of decision dated 07.08.2008. The impugned order, however, directs that in the event if the Petitioner fails to deposit the amount within 60 days as directed, the Defendant No.1 (Defendant Nos.1-A and 1-B) would be free to sale the said property to the third party for a price not below the market value being Rs.3 Lac. 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has made grievance that permitting the Defendants Nos.1-A and 1-B to sale the property to the third party goes to modify the decree itself without there being any challenge to the direction contained at Sr.No.3 in the decree. 4 Perusal of the operative order dated 28.01.2005 clearly reveals that in the event if the Petitioner/ Plaintiff deposits the amount as per the direction of the Court, in that event the said Defendants would be perpetually restrained from selling their interest in the suit property to anybody else, however, the Plaintiff himself failed to deposit the amount which would be condition *3* precedent for enforcement of the preferential right. The Plaintiff cannot claim that the injunction be continued indefinitely. In substance, direction No.3 is rendered redundant on account of non compliance of the direction issued to the Plaintiff to deposit the market value of the interest of the Defendants Nos.1-A and 1-B in the suit property. 5 In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Petition stands dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)