1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1729 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1290 OF 2004 Shri.Kuber Jangonda Patil .. Applicant V/s Shri.Dnyanoba Guruling Sadigale & Ors. .. Respondents Mrs. S.A.Mudbidri, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 22nd February, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs.Mudbidri, learned counsel for the Applicant. On 8.4.2010 Rule was issued on the Civil Application. Office remark indicates that the Respondent Nos.1, 2A to 2C and 3 are duly served. Despite service, nobody appears for the Respondents. 2. By this application the applicant is praying for injunction restraining the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 from selling, alienating or disposing off or creating any third party right, title and interest in respect of suit land bearing Gat No.128/1 situate at village Shelave, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. The applicant had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.606 of 1987 for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for return of the earnest money. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the Respondent No.2-Narayan, since 2 deceased, executed the registered sale deed in favour of Respondent No.1- Dnyanoba on 16.4.1991. By this sale deed, the Respondent No.2 sold land admeasuring 1-H 61-R from Gat No.128/1. By the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1999, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit. Against this decision, Respondent No.1 herein who was the original Defendant No.2 preferred Civil Appeal No.109 of 1999. The leaned District Judge allowed the appeal on 7.8.2002. Except Point No.5 all the points were answered in favour of the applicant. The learned District Judge refused the decree for specific performance on the ground of mis-description of the suit land in the agreement for sale dated 28.5.1985. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has preferred Second Appeal No.1290 of 2004. Appeal was admitted on 8.4.2010. 3. Having regard to the fact that the learned trial Judge decreed the suit instituted by the applicant and further having due regard to the fact that except Point No. 5 all the points have been answered in favour of the applicant, in my opinion, the applicant has made out case for issuing injunction in terms of prayer clause (b ). Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Costs in the cause. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)