1 CAF 4535 OF 2009 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4535 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1770 OF 2009. Baban Kad .. applicant. -versus Abhijit A Nag .. Respondent. Mr. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, for the applicant. Mr. P. J. Thorat, for the respondent CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATED: 20th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application for stay of the decree passed by the trial Court. The decree is of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25th June, 1995. Appeal has been admitted for final hearing. 3. Application is opposed by the respondent-plaintiff. It is pointed out in the reply that in breach of express order of injunction passed by this Court in Civil Application No.3863 of 2003 in First Appeal No.1421 of 2003, the applicant has sold out a part of the property to one M/s Raj Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The said appeal was preferred by the applicant himself for challenging the decree earlier passed in the same 2 CAF 4535 OF 2009 suit. In the reply, it is also stated that as the transfer was effected by the applicant in breach of order of injunction passed by this Court, the respondent has taken out contempt petition. 4. When all these aspects were pointed out, learned counsel for applicant on instructions made a statement which has been recorded in the order dated 18th March,2011 passed by this Court. Order dated 18th March, 2011 reads thus:- “Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant states that the purchaser to whom he has transferred the suit property has agreed to reconvey an area of 2 acres to the applicant within a period of two weeks from today. Statement is accepted. Only in view of this statement adjournment is granted to the Applicant till 8th April, 2011”. 5. Till today the applicant has not obtained reconveyance of area of 2 acres. 6. Considering this conduct of the applicant, prayer for stay cannot be granted. It is obvious that if in execution of the decree, a sale deed is executed during the pendency of this appeal, the same will be subject to the final outcome of the appeal. 7. In the reply, respondent has alleged that the applicant has committed breach of the order of temporary 3 CAF 4535 OF 2009 injunction passed by this Court in Civil Application No.3863 of 2003, and a separate contempt petition is pending. This Court has not made any adjudication on the allegations as regards the breach of order of injunction. This Court has rejected this application taking into account the conduct of the applicant of selling a part of the suit property during the pendency of earlier appeal and on account of non compliance of statement made on 18th March, 2011. Subject to what is observed above, application is rejected. (A. S. OKA, J.)