1909ao95.11 .odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.95 OF 2011 VINAYKISHOR S/O VISHWANATH SHUKLA V/S SIDDHANATH S/O RAMSEVAK SHUKLA AND ORS ........................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................ Shri M.G.Sarda, Counsel for the Appellants. Shri B.K.Gandhi, Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 19. SEPTEMBER, 2011. The defendants have filed this appeal challenging the order of injunction dated 3.5.2011, passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in Special Civil Suit No.452 of 1996. The operative part of the order passed by the Court, is reproduced below-- "ORDER 1) An application below Exh.151 is hereby allowed. 2) The defendants, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through them are hereby temporary restrained from alienating the suit property to anybody else and creating third party interest over the suit property as well as making any construction .....2/- 1909ao95.11 .odt 2 over the suit property till final decision of this suit. 3) Costs in cause." Undisputedly, the Trial Court had passed an order of status-quo on 20.12.1996. Thereafter, it was continued by an order dated 25.7.1997 pending the decision of the suit. It is also not in dispute that the appellants/defendants have created third party interest in the suit property after the order of status-quo was passed by this Court and the stand taken in reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure in para-3, is reproduced below-- "3] It is submitted that the Defendant has not sold the property. The transaction is a nominal and never to be acted upon. The transaction is for the security of money. The property is still in possession of the Defendant. It is submitted that the transaction regarding the property described in 'K' is not for the complete property. Thus the transaction is nominal and possession is still with the Defendant. Hence, the Defendant has not transferred any property. The application filed by the applicant/Plaintiff is only to delay the matter and therefore liable to be dismissed." .....3/- 1909ao95.11 .odt 3 The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the stand of the purchaser of the suit property is that they are in possession of the property and they have also been added as a party to the suit. In view of aforesaid factual position, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-