{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.123 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8921 OF 2011 Datta s/o Shivaram Rathod Appellant Versus Mahesh s/o Rajesh Chandak Respondent Mr.Amit Mukhedkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.Aniket Bhakkad, advocate for Respondent-sole. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19 th December, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard Mr.Amit Mukhedkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Aniket Bhakkad, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2 Grant of injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract is questioned by learned Counsel for the appellant – original defendant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it was basically a transaction of finance or loan availed by the appellant from the Respondent (original plaintiff) and a different colour is given by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 12.09.2007. Learned Counsel also submits that it is his residential premises and he has no intention to alienate or dispose of the same. {2} 3 Learned Counsel for the appellant / defendant also feels aggrieved by the observations about the genuineness of the document, made by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in the order dated 22.03.2011. 4 In the light of statement of advocate Mr.Mukhedkar, on instructions from the appellant, the appellant - defendant in Special Civil Suit No.148/2004, shall not transfer or create third party right in respect of the suit property, which is subject matter of agreement of sale dated 12.09.2007, till disposal of the suit. 5 The observations made by the learned Judge while clamping injunction against the appellant are naturally prima facie. The learned Judge shall not be swayed with the same at the time of trial. 6 Appeal from Order stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Civil Application also stands disposed of. K.U.CHANDIWAL JUDGE adb/ao12311