1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1007 OF 2007 Hindurao Ganapati Pawar.......Appellant. versus Jaywant Ganpat Khamkar & ors....... Respondents. Mr. Suresh K. Mali for the Applicant Mr. J.P. Shah i/b M/s. JPS Legal for the Respondents 1 to 3. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 12TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: 1. This A.O. Can be conveniently disposed of without entering into the controversy. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by an order passed rejecting three Notice of Motions taken out by Plaintiff/appellant. The first Notice of Motion sought ad-interim injunction with a view to prevent the defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff. The second Notice of Motion was taken out claiming the relief of mandatory injunction with a view to command the defendant to hand over the possession to the Plaintiff, as according to the Plaintiff he was dispossessed by the Defendant pending the suit and the last Notice of motion is 2 moved under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, with a view to initiate proceedings for breach of the order allegedly committed by the Defendants. The learned counsel for the appellant in all fairness restricts his prayer in the appeal only to the extent that the defendants should not create a third party interest or transfer possession of the suit premises in favour of anyone else pending decision of the suit. The learned counsel for the Defendants also submits that the Defendants will not create any third party interest in the suit premises and shall not hand over the possession thereof to a third party pending decision of the suit. The statement made by the counsel for the Defendants/respondents, on instructions from the Defendant who is present in the court, is accepted. In view of this agreed position, the A.O. stands disposed of. Suit is expedited. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J)