1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 84/2010 JAVED HUSSAIN YUSUFBHAI AMEEN ..versus.. ABHINAY DINANATH HARDE AND ANOHER =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri S.B.Bhutada, Counsel for petitioner. Shri A.Sirsikar, counsel for respondent no.1 Shri Abhijit Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.2 C ORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2010 . This appeal challenges the order dated 24.2.2010 passed below Exh. 5 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in SCC No. 33/2008, rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from alienating the property or creating third party interest. 2] The trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. The further finding is recorded that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff and if the injunction is not granted, the plaintiff is not likely to suffer irreparable loss. With these findings, the application for grant of injunction was rejected. While 2 considering these points, the court has held that prima facie the suit has been filed beyond the period of 3 years and in view of the provisions of Article 54 of Limitation Act, the suit is not within a period of limitation. 3] Shri Bhutada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that he has claimed relief restraining the defendant no.2 from alienating the suit property by creating third party interest and the trial Court ought to have granted the said relief. 4] From the facts gathered from the order passed by the trial Court, it is apparent that defendant no.1 has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 on 20.2.2007. As per the agreement dated 21.10.2004 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff, the sale deed was required to be executed on or before 31.10.2004. The suit has been filed on 7.1.2008. In view of this factual position, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 5] Shri Bhutada, learned counsel submits that the trial Court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously. It is open for the parties to file an application for framing the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue and to decide the same. The issues are yet to be framed and hence, at this stage, it is not 3 proper to direct the trial Court to decide the suit within the stipulated period. However, after the issues are framed, it will be open for the parties to move the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Appeal against order is dismissed. JUDGE. Rvjalit