1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.289 OF 2009 Mrs.Dhanashree Shamrao Gavali ..... Appellants & Anr. vs. Ramesh Pandurang Rau ..... Respondent Mr.A.M. Kulkarni,Advocate for appellants. None for respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 9th October, 2009. PC : 1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 11th December 2008 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the appellants for interim relief to restrain the respondent interalia from creating any third party rights over the suit property. 2. The appellants entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 27th January 2006 with the respondent for purchase of the suit property. The appellants gave a sum of Rs.1,00,011/- to the respondent towards earnest money. The remaining consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- was to be paid in instalments as per the schedule mentioned in M.O.U. The first payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be made at the time of execution of the development agreement, to be executed after obtaining all the requisite 2 permissions and orders such as N.A. Order sanctioning of building permission, permissions under Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. For that purpose, the respondent was to handover all the original documents of title and all other relevant documents pertaining to the said property to the Advocate for the appellants within a period of 30 days from the execution of MOU. It is complained by the appellants that despite repeated requests and demands, the respondent failed to hand over the documents till date. Thus the respondent has evaded his duties under the MOU. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellants submits that the defence taken by the respondent in the written statement is that the signature of respondent was obtained by the appellants on the MOU after putting him under the influence of liquor. These defence is inconsistent with the notice sent by the respondent dated 17th April 2007 by which the respondent cancelled the MOU. 3. As agreement sought to be specifically performed by the suit is an MOU. It is well established that no specific performance can be asked of the MOU. Besides, there is no material brought on record to show that there were any demands made calling upon the respondent to hand over documents pertaining to the property. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge rejected the application for interim reliefs. The impugned order does not require any interference. Mr.Kulkarni 3 then appeals for expeditious hearing of the suit. The appellants are at liberty to make an application to the trial Court for expeditious hearing of the suit. The trial Court to consider such applications and also taking into consideration the pendency of the matters before it. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)