:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3322 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 3322 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 3322 OF 2008 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2008 APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2008 APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2008 Mrs. Mangala Parashram Hire. ... Appellant. V/s. Smt. Kamal Chandulal Khemani & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. R.M. Haridas i/b. P.N. Joshi for the Appellant. Mr. V.M. Parshurami i/b. Mandar Goswami for Respondent 1. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. : J.H. BHATIA, J. : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008. : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008. : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant/Applicant before this Court is the Orig. Plaintiff. She had entered into an agreement with the Defendant/Respondent No.1 to purchase the suit plot for consideration of Rs.1,37,738/- and accordingly agreement for sale was executed on 3rd August 1994. Amount of Rs. 7,000/- was paid by her and balance amount of Rs.1,30,788/- was to be paid at the execution and registration of sale deed. As per the terms of the contract the sale deed was to be executed after notice of sanction of the final lay out, within three months from the date of the sanction. The Plaintiff filed Special Suit No. 317 of 1999 on 15th September 1999 i.e. five years after the agreement. The Trial Court, after hearing :2: the evidence for both the parties noted that the suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff’s Advocate pointed out that she was ready and willing to perform her part of specific performance of agreement to sale but as she had not entered into witness box and only her husband was examined as witness, the suit came to be dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the final layout was sanctioned within two months from the agreement. It appears that in alternative to the decree for specific performance to the contract, the Plaintiff had also sought compensation of Rs.5,63,400/-. The Trial Court rejected both the claims. It will not be desirable to discuss the reasons at this stage. However, I find that the Appellant is not entitled to get any interim relief merely because the Appeal has been admitted. 4. As per the terms of the contract if the sale deed is not executed within specific period, the Plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount back with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The learned Counsel for the Respondent makes a statement that even though the suit was barred by limitation, the Defendant No.1 is willing to re-pay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as per the terms of the contract and she would deposit the amount in the Court within two weeks. The statement is accepted. :3: 5. In view of the above statement made by the learned Counsel, I find that no other interim relief can be given. Therefore, the application is rejected, subject to the statement made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 (J.H. (J.H. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) BHATIA,J.) BHATIA,J.)