1 Civil Appln. no. 617.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO 617 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2007 Babasaheb Sheshrao Waghmode and another ... Applicants V E R S U S Laxman Bhimaji Jadhavar and another ... Respondents ... Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants Mr. V.C.Solshe, Advocate for Respondents ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 3rd MARCH, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard. 2] This application seeks stay to the effect of judgment and decree granting perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent. The applicants- appellants, in the year 1985 agreed to purchase the suit land from the respondent no.2. Soon, thereafter, the appellants filed a suit (Regular Civil Suit No.31 of 1985) against the respondent no.2 seeking specific performance of the agreement, and also sought perpetual injunction suggesting thereby that after the agreement for sale, he was put in possession of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, they even 2 Civil Appln. no. 617.07 obtained an order of temporary injunction against the vendor- respondent no.2. While this was going on, the respondent no.2 -vendor- agreed to sell the suit land also to the present respondent No.1. The respondent no.1, having realised that there was already an agreement between his vendor- respondent No.2 and the applicants-appellants, he hurriedly filed his suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1985) for specific performance and declaration etc. He sought the declaration that, the transaction that was recorded between the applicants-appellants and respondent no.2 was not binding on him. He also sought the perpetual injunction, thereby suggested that he was put in possession when the agreement took place in his favour. Initially, his application for temporary injunction was rejected, but he on filing an "Appeal from order" before this Court, obtained such order of temporary injunction against the respondent no.2 and so also the applicants- appellants. This "Appeal from order" remained pending for quite some time, and the ad-interim order of temporary injunction also remained in force. In the meantime, in 1990 the applicants- appellants and respondent no.2 recorded a compromise in suit (Regular Civil Suit No.31 of 1985). Pursuant to such compromise, the respondent no.2 executed sale deed in favour of the applicants-appellants. Apparently, this was done, despite of the order of temporary injunction passed in "Appeal from Order", running against 3 Civil Appln. no. 617.07 both, the respondent no.2 and the applicants- appellants. The applicants-appellants did not seek setting aside of the order of temporary injunction passed by the High Court in "Appeal from order". In the meantime, the respondent no.1 continued the prosecution of the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1985 and ultimately obtained a decree on 19.01.1991, whereby, he also got a decree of perpetual injunction against both his adversaries. The applicants-appellants, then filed an appeal against this judgment and decree in the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1985. But, I am told that, during the pendency of this appeal no order of staying the effect of the order of perpetual injunction was passed. The appeal was also dismissed and thereafter the present appeal is filed. In view of this, there is no question of staying the effect of order of perpetual injunction. There is scope for doing so. 3] Mrs. Kulkarni tried to draw my attention to the revenue record. She also tried to show me that all throughout during the pendency of the litigation, the respondent no.1 was not shown in possession in the revenue record. I am afraid, this may not help the applicants-appellants, because the orders of the Courts below preventing them from entering into the suit land, were in force against them. The entry in the revenue record thus could not have nullified the effect of the orders of the Courts below. 4 Civil Appln. no. 617.07 4] Thus, this application is rejected to the extent of the effect of the decree of perpetual injunction, however, earlier order staying the effect of specific performance shall stand continued till disposal of the appeal. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ ok