1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 141 OF 2007 ( Moreshwar Gopalrao Kale vs. Smt. Madalsa Rutudhwaj Deshpande & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Madkholkar with Shri Bhuibhar, Advocates for the appellant, Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 10 and Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 11. The Court below has refused temporary injunction in pending suit for specific performance. The learned counsel for the appellants has invited attention to various documents in order to show how the reasoning given in para 21 of said order is erroneous. The learned counsel for respondents No. 6 to 10, however, has invited attention to the fact that the suit for specific performance is in pursuance of agreement dated 14.10.2002 and memorandum of understanding dated 27.09.2001 and 19.10.2006. He points out that in plaint, it is nowhere asserted that obligations undertaken thereby, particularly 2 under the Memorandum of understanding dated 19.10.2006 have been discharged or rights accrued in favour of the appellant have been exercised. It is an admitted position that the Court below has not considered this aspect at all. But as the plaint does not demonstrate such readiness and willingness, I have heard Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel, in order to find out whether said readiness and willingness is demonstrated by any of the documents on record. In the documents as filed along with this appeal memo, attention has been invited to communication dated 01.06.2006 which reflects certain payments to defendants No. 1 to 5. However, the document is prior to the memorandum of understanding dated 19.10.2006 and, therefore, not relevant. In these circumstances, in this Appeal against Order, I am not inclined to interfere. A.O. Is, therefore, dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel makes a request that status quo as on today should be continued. Shri Bhangde, Senior Advocate opposes such request and he points out that there was no interim order operating for last more than one year. 3 Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel, however, states that before earlier Bench, a statement was made by Shri Bhangde, Senior Advocate that status quo will be maintained. Shri Bhangde clarifies that statement made was that no transfers in favour of third parties were expected till next date of hearing. Shri Bhangde states that this position clarified on that date was thereafter not required to be continued and there is no undertaking recorded and no interim order is operating after said `next date'. After hearing counsel, it appears that there was some interim arrangement for some time in the matter. In the circumstances, in view of the request made, Respondents No. 6 to 10 shall not create any third party interest from today onwards for a period of four weeks and the order shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE *GS.