1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.580 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.674 OF 2008 Shri Yogesh Navinchandra Rai (Kalal) & ors. : Appellants versus Shri Uttam Ambadas Rai (Kalal) : Respondent. Shri Prasad Dani for the Appellants. Shri M S Karnik for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal challenges the order dated 11th March2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Nashik by which order the Application Exhibit 5 filed by the Plaintiff i.e. The Respondent herein came to be allowed. 2. The Respondent herein is the original Plaintiff, who has 2 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 7th December 2002 of the Bungalow and the land owned by the Appellants herein. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the consideration under the said Agreement was Rs.Twenty Five lakhs out of which the Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.Two lakhs Fifty Thousand in cash to the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed an application Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction, pending the suit. 3. The said Application was resisted by the Defendants. It is the case of the Defendants that no such agreement was entered into between the parties. The Defendants denied the very execution of the said agreement. It is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has played fraud upon them by using the signatures on certain papers which the Defendants had signed pursuant to an earlier transaction. 4. The trial Court considered the said Application Exhibit 5 and in view of the fact that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, allowed the said Application Exhibit 5. The trial Court injuncted the Defendants from selling, alienating and disposing of the property in 3 question. 5. It is pertinent to note that the suit has been filed in the year 2002 and the ad interim relief has been operating since then in favour of the Plaintiff. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff i.e. The Respondent herein submitted that the said suit is ripe for hearing and in fact has kept for filing affidavit of evidence. 6. In my view, the reasons given by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 11th March 2008 in Paragraphs 9 and 10 do not warrant any interference from this Court at this stage. The interest of justice would be served if the hearing of the Special Civil Suit No.351 of 2002 is expedited and is directed to be disposed of by 31st March 2009. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 4 8. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.674 of 2008 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]