IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR C.A. NO.327/2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 4872/07 [Telecom Engineering ..vs.. Shalikram Nighote] ===================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:4.3.2009 . Heard Shri Kendurkar, Advocate for petitioner and Shri Kothari, Advocate for respondent. This is an application by the petitioner, seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of this petition, under order 39 rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. claiming restraint on the respondent from dealing with the property in any way or creating any third party interest in the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent had secured a decree of specific performance of contract which was confirmed in the appeal against which this petition is filed. It is further case of the petitioner that while admitting this petition by this court on 7.8.2008, this court granted Rule with no interim relief. According to him, the order of “no interim relief” is written in this way because he had submitted before the court that there was no interim relief before lower court. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a refusal of an interim relief. It is informed that this order was challenged in review application, but the same was dismissed. Facts thus are that the respondent is armed with the decree. While admitting the petition the relevant order clearly shows that there was no interim relief which could mean that the interim relief was refused. Therefore, no such injunction now restraining the respondent can be granted. Petitioner further contends that there would be multiplicity of litigation if respondent creates third party interest in the suit property, but that cannot be a ground to grant injunction in above referred facts of the case. At the most it can be directed that respondent while creating third party interest, would make that third party aware about the pendency of this petition. The prayer of the petitioner that the respondent shall not make any construction on the suit property also can not be granted. However, all the transactions entered by the respondent, if any, and construction done by him, if any, shall be subject to the final orders in this petition. Consequently this application is rejected. JUDGE smp.