( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11212 OF 2010 Fabulous Estate Private Ltd., .. Appellant Through its Directors Versus Mozamkhan s/o. Osmankhan Pathan & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 23.09.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the facts of the case. He submitted that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.08.2006. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the sale-deed was to be executed before 30th ( 2 ) March, 2007. However, the plaintiff failed to execute sale- deed. 2. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the property is purchased by executing sale deed dated 13.02.2009 i.e. before filing the suit by the plaintiffs. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that before purchasing the property, notice was published in the news paper. He has further submitted that possession was never given to the plaintiffs by defendant No.1. Since the appellant is not party to the suit between defendant No. 1 and plaintiff, no injunction can be clamped against the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant also invited my attention to Sections 53 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. He has invited my attention to the grounds taken in the appeal memo and submitted that since the sale-deed is executed in favour of defendant Nos. 2A to 2D by defendant No.1 and report of handwriting expert about signature of defendant No.1 is received by the Court, which is against the plaintiff, the agreement to sell is not binding on the parties. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel for the appellant would urge that this Appeal from Order deserves to be allowed. ( 3 ) 3. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to para 7 of the impugned order and submitted that the Trial Court, taking into consideration balance of convenience, has passed order granting temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 2A to 2D from not alienating, transferring or creating third party rights in the suit property. Learned counsel further invited my attention to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and submitted that since the suit is pending before the Competent Court and during the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court has rightly restrained defendant Nos. 2A to 2D, from selling the property to some other persons so as to avoid multiplicity of the suit. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the Appeal from Order is devoid of merit and same deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents at length. It is not in dispute that in 2006 there is agreement to sell between original and defendant No. 1. So far as payment of amount of Rs.1 lakh is concerned, that is ( 4 ) also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the agreement of sale is earlier in time than sale-deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2A to 2D. Learned Judge taking into consideration the entire material brought on record in para 7 has taken note of the disputed facts and also observed that the signature on the agreement to sell and report of handwriting expert is the matter to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit and unless opportunity is given to other side on the report of handwriting expert, no order can be passed in haste at interim stage. Learned Judge has taken recourse to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The relief which is granted in favour of the original plaintiff is only that defendant Nos. 2A to 2D are restrained from selling or transferring or creating third party rights in the property. After all relief of injunction is discretionary relief and in in view of material brought on record by the parties, the Trial Court has rightly passed order. There is no perversity in the order. Equitable order is passed by the Trial Court. No perversity is found. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed. ( 5 ) 5. In view of dismissal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application No. 11212 of 2010 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] snk/2010/SEP10/ao113.10