1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 388/2011 (Mohsin Ali Mohd. Hussain VERSUS Aezaz Ali Rajab Ali & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Rohit Joshi, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 25 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 15.12.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for striking out the defence of the respondent. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had filed a suit for injunction. An application was also filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It appears that an ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 01.07.2002 and it was continued from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the orders passed by the trial Court, the respondent had entered into a registered agreement to sell the suit property on 11.06.2010 and, hence, the prohibitory orders passed against the defendants were breached by the defendants. In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioner sought for the striking out of the defence of the defendants- respondents. 2 On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 15.12.2010, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. By the temporary injunction order, the trial Court had temporarily restrained the defendants from selling the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It appears from the contents of the application that the suit property was not sold by the defendants and the defendants had merely entered into an agreement to sell the suit property on 11.06.2010. Since the trial Court had restrained the defendants from selling the suit property or alienating the same and since mere execution of the registered agreement of sale is not an alienation or sale of the property, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and held that there was no question of striking of defence of the defendants. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and cannot be interfered with, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE