1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.576 OF 2008 Abdul Hamid Ahmedmiya Nambre and Ors. .....Appellants V/s. Shobhnath R. Pande and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Rajesh More, for the appellants. Smt.Aparna Shinde, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2009 P.C. 1. The appellants are the original defendants of Special Civil Suit No.127 of 2007, which is pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. The aforesaid suit has been filed by respondents herein against the present appellants as well as Survey and Land Officers of CIDCO. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the concerned defendants have executed agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and that they have tried to backtrack. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have paid earnest money of Rs.6,05,000/-, particulars of which is given in the plaint. 2. The suit has been resisted by the original defendants on various grounds. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both the sides, came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and has found that since the suit is pending, it is just and proper 2 to ask the defendants not to transfer, alienate or create third party interest in connection with the suit property. The learned Trial Judge has accordingly granted interim injunction in favour of the original plaintiffs. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, the appellants/original defendants have preferred this Appeal From Order under Section 43 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in case the suit is delayed, the defendants may be deprived of their right to deal with the property, as according to him, ultimately after evidence is brought on record and suit is dismissed, the defendants may suffer irreparable loss as they will not be able to develop the property for a long period. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and have gone through the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons by coming to the conclusion that status quo of property in question is required to be maintained during the pendency of the suit, as in case any third party interest is created, it may complicate the issue. The discretionary order passed by the learned Trial Judge is not required to be interfered with in this Appeal from Order which is filed under Section 43 of C.P.C. It is true that as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in case ultimately if the suit is dismissed and if the appellants is prevented from alienating or dealing 3 with the land, the appellants may put to some financial loss. Considering the said fact, even though the order of the Trial Court is required to be uphold, during the pendency of the suit, the learned Trial Judge may try to expedite the suit as it is a suit for specific performance and may try to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from today, subject to other urgent cases. Registry is directed to send writ to the learned Trial Judge without any further delay. 5. Subject to what has been stated above, the appeal from order is dismissed with no order as to costs. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)