1 AO No.747/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.747 of 2010 Shri Rajkumar Motilal Shah ... Appellant versus Shri Basaveshwar Ganpatrao Dombe & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.Amit Sale for the appellant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 2nd December 2010 P.C. 1. Appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit no.20 of 2010 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12 January 1996. In the mean while, the original owner had sold the property and the purchasers had further sold the property to defendant nos.6 and 7. The appellant therefore joined the first purchaser as well as second purchaser as parties to the suit. In the suit, he prayed for an interim injunction restraining respondent nos.6 and 7 (final purchasers) from disturbing his possession. He subsequently filed another application for restraining the respondent nos.6 and 7 from carrying out any construction on the suit property. The applications were rejected. Aggrieved appellant is in appeal. 2 AO No.747/10 2. According to the appellant, the original owner had agreed to sell the property to him for a consideration of Rs. 12,75,000/- out of which he paid only Rs.11,000/- as an earnest money. He further claimed that possession of the suit property was delivered to him at the time of agreement for sale. The trial Judge has disbelieved his case of he being in possession and in my view for good reasons. Firstly, the agreement for sale does not mention delivery for possession. Secondly, a paltry sum of less than 1% of the agreed price was paid as an earnest. In the absence of any recital in the agreement and any other material on record about delivery of possession, the trial Judge was right in not believing that by receiving sum of Rs.11,000/- the owners handed over the possession of the suit property to the appellant in part performance. It may be noted that suit for specific performance has been filed after 9 years (suit was filed in the year 2005 which was renumbered in the year 2010) This is also a circumstance which goes against grant of any interim relief. In my view, the trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application. Appeal is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)