1 ao376 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.376 OF 2011 Sanjeevani Narayan Payal & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Laxmi Gautam Chiwante & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.N.Patil i/b Mr.Laxman Deshmukh for the appellants None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 26,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants who are the original plaintiffs. By the impugned order, application for temporary injunction made by the appellants has been rejected. The appellants are relying upon the agreement for sale dated 22nd August 1988 executed by one Gautam who was the predecessor of the respondents-defendants. Present suit has been filed in the year 2010. There is no effort made by the appellants for seeking enforcement of the agreement of the year 1988 till the year 2010. The agreement records that the financial condition of the deceased Gautam was not sound and therefore, financial help of Rs.17,000/- was given by the appellants to the said Gautam and the said Gautam agreed to sell the suit premises which is a room at the price of Rs.53,000/-. There is a recital in the alleged agreement that the appellants were placed in possession of the suit premises. 2 The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the fact that the original agreement (document of title) in respect of the suit premises and the receipt of payments are in possession of the appellants. He 2 ao376 submitted that entire consideration of Rs.53,000/- has been paid in cash. He submitted that possession of the appellants is sought to be disturbed. 3 I have considered the submissions. On 22nd August 1988, as per the case of the appellants, the suit agreement was executed which records that financial help to the extent of Rs.17,000/- was given by the appellants to the deceased Gautam. There is no prima facie evidence on record to show that the balance consideration was paid in cash to the deceased Gautam. 4 The averments made in the application for temporary injunction show that no steps were taken by the appellants till the year 2010 for getting the alleged agreement of the year 1988 enforced. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in declining to grant interim relief of discretionary nature. No interference is called for with the equitable order passed by the trial Court. 5 Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order and confirmation thereof by this Court. Civil application no.523 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE