IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 46 OF 2009 MR. AIRES JOSE OCTAVIANO JOAO CORDEIRO ... Appellant Versus MRS. SUSAN THEREZA PINTO ... Respondent Mr. Neelesh A. Takkekar, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 3rd November, 2009 ORAL ORDER This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.02.2009 passed in Misc. Civil Application no. 497/2004/A in Matrimonial Petition no. 64/2004/A filed by the respondent no.1 herein, who is the wife of the present appellant. In the said Matrimonial Petition, the above mentioned Misc. Civil Application came to be filed seeking temporary injunction against the appellant herein. The learned Trial Court considered the said application and has passed an Order granting the said temporary injunction thereby restraining the appellant herein or his agents from alienating the property belonging to them and also from realising or withdrawing the money present in the account in the name of the respondent or operating the account, so also from adjudicating the Sale Deed in favour of anybody other than the Petitioner (i.e. respondent no.1) in respect of the flat at Vivienne Apartment pending the decision in the Matrimonial Petition. The reasons as to why the said temporary injunction needs to be granted have been mentioned in the impugned Order. 2. Having perused the impugned Order, in my view, no fault could be found with the Trial Court in granting the said injunction considering the fact that the Matrimonial Petition between the parties is pending. 3. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant has some reservation as regards the operative part of the Order inasmuch as it directs to the following extent "so also from adjudicating the Sale Deed in favour of anybody other than the Petitioner and Respondent in respect of the flat at Vivienne Apartments" till the time deciding the main Petition on merits. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the same should not be understood to mean that the suit filed by him for specific performance in respect of the flat in the said Vivienne Apartments, cannot be decided in deciding the said suit. 4. In my view, the apprehension is misfounded. The phraseology used by the Trial Court in the impugned Order "adjudicating the Sale Deed in favour of anybody" could only mean that execution of the Sale Deed in favour of anybody else than the respondent no.1 herein and would not mean that the concerned Court cannot decide the suit filed by the appellant herein. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal is dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*