- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.926 OF 2008 1.Sau.Raj Harshakumar Bamb & anr. ...Appellants/ (orig.plaintiffs) vs. 1.Dr.Ujawalsingh Gulabsingh Pawar and another. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.P.Thorat, for Appellants. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED: 3rd October,2008. DATED: 3rd October,2008. DATED: 3rd October,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. The appellants/plaintiffs had sought usual interim relief in a suit for specific performance for sale of a plot. 2. The plaintiffs’ case is that an oral agreement was entered into on 28.8.2005 for sale of the said plot for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) and that a sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) was paid in advance. The - 2 - appellants issued a public notice inviting objections on 6.9.2005. The suit was filed on 23.3.2006. 3. The plaintiffs may have a good case against defendant no.1. However, by an agreement dated 13.4.2006, defendant no.1 sold the said plot to defendant no.2 who was thereafter impleaded in the suit. There is nothing to show that defendant no.2 is not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The conveyance in favour of defendant no.2 is registered. 4. In these circumstances, even assuming that defendant no.1 has a good case against defendant no.2, the grant of an injunction affecting the rights of defendant no.2 would not be justified. 5. The plaintiffs would, in these circumstances at the highest, be entitled to damages from defendant no.1. In these circumstances, AO is disposed of. ---