-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2036 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1633 OF 2008 Om Health Centres Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Vijay Gangan. ..Respondent. Mr. Ravi Kadam, A.G. with D. D. Madan, Sr. Advocate and B. B. Saraf i/b M/s. Prakash & Co., for the appellant. Mr. S. C. Naidu with S. D. Kulkarni, N. P. Dalavi i/b C. R. Naidu & Co., for the respondent. Coram : D. K. DESHMUKH & R. V. MORE, J. Date : May 5, 2010. P. C. : 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd March 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court rejecting notice of motion taken out by the appellant-plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of the property. 2. The suit of the plaintiff is for specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The agreement, according to the plaintiff, was entered into in the month of March 1995. According to the plaintiff, the terms of that agreement were recorded in a letter dated 24th March 1995 written by the plaintiff to the advocate of the defendant. Admittedly, there is no written agreement to sell signed by both the sides. -: 2 :- 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have perused the record. We find that in paragraph no.21 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleges that there were negotiations between the plaintiff, one Amritlal who was co-executor of the Will and defendant who was also executor of the Will of deceased Chunilal Ukabhai Padia. The letter dated 24th March 1995 however does not allege that the defendant was present at the time of negotiations or any agreement was entered into with him. The affidavit of the lawyer on which reliance is placed alleges that the defendant was present. Thus, we find apparent contradiction in the versions put up by the plaintiff as to with whom agreement was entered into. Admittedly, there is no payment of money by the plaintiff to the defendant. Rs.10 lacs are allegedly deposited with the lawyer who claims to be representing the defendant. Agreement is allegedly of the year 1995. Admittedly, in the year 1995 there was temporary injunction running restraining the defendant from disposing of the property. In the year 1995 price was agreed upon, according to the plaintiff, at Rs.5.50 crores. The temporary injunction because of which, according to the plaintiff, agreement was not reduced into writing admittedly continued till 2006. There was sea-change in the prices of the immovable property in Mumbai between 1995 and 2006. Thus considering that the agreement of sale on which the suit is based is an oral agreement, discrepancies in the case of the plaintiff in relations to the persons with whom the agreement was entered into and passage of time, in our opinion clearly indicate that the -: 3 :- plaintiff does not have a good prima facie case so as to entitle to him to any interim order. In this view of the matter, therefore in our opinion, there is no room to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is rejected. 4. Despite rejection of the appeal, ad-interim order already granted shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks subject to condition that the amount of Rs.5.50 crores is deposited in this Court by the plaintiff with due intimation to the defendant, within the period of one week from today. The amount on being deposited shall be immediately invested in the fixed deposit with nationalised bank to the credit of the suit. 5. The continuation of ad-interim order shall not, however, come in the way of the defendant in negotiating with the Reserve Bank of India, who is tenant in the property for revision of rent. 6. Notice of Motion No. 1251 of 2010 stands disposed of. (D. K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.V. MORE, J.)