1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 44 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2010 Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal .. Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) Vs. Shri Sonaba Bhau Khedekar & Ors. .. Respondents (Org. defendants) Mr.S.J.Rairkar, i/b. Mr. N.C.Walimbe,Advocates, for the appellant. Mr.Amol P.Deshpande,Advocate, for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 & 5 to 16. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 30th March,2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff/appellant contends that in 1993, he had entered into an agreement with the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 15 to purchase the suit land Survey No.103 admeasuring 1 hectare and 52.75 Ares for consideration of Rs. 3,01,625/-. Whole of the consideration amount was paid in lump sum and agreement for sale was executed. On 19.4.2004, the respondents Nos. 1 to 15 2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.16 and on 1.10.2004, respondent No.16 executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 17 to 19 in respect of 40 Ares land out of the complete suit land. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.182 of 2006 on 23.1.2006 for specific performance of the contract and by Application Exhibit 5 he sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 16 to 19 from creating any third party interest. The defendant nos. 1 to 15 denied that such consideration was paid to them. The trial Court rejected the application Exhibit 5 holding that there was no documentary evidence to support the plea of the plaintiff that whole of the consideration amount was paid by him. 3. It is material to note that according to the plaintiff, he had entered into an agreement in December 1993 and in June 1995, whole of the consideration amount was paid as per the agreement. It is difficult to understand why the plaintiff did not get the sale deed executed if whole of the consideration amount was paid. There is no explanation why the plaintiff was keeping silence for 13 long years after the agreement for sale. The defendant No.16 and then defendant Nos. 17 to 19 appear to have purchased the property prima facie without the knowledge of any such agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 to 15. Taking into consideration these circumstances and the fact that there is no 3 documentary evidence to support the payment as alleged by the plaintiff, I do not see any reason to interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court in not granting interim relief. 4. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, C.A. No.66 of 2010 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)