1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 133 OF 2007 with C.A.No.10764 of 2007 Vishwanath s/o Rakmaji Raut, Age 38 years, Occ. Business, r/o. Basmat Road, Parbhani. ...APPELLANT ORI.PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. Smt. Mangala Ramrao Patil, Age 52 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Ramkrishna Nagar, Parbhani, (Summons to be served at the office of B.S.N.L. Behind S.B.H. Near Administrative Building, Parbhani.) 2. Kisan Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Parbhani, through it's Manager, Narayan Chawl Corner, Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS ORI.DEFENDANTS. ... Mr. S.K.Chavan, Adv., for appellant. Mr.Gajanan Kadam, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :24th Feb.,2010 *** 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard finally. Admit. 2. Plaintiff moved Special Civil Suit No. 3/2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, for specific performance of suit house i.e. M.C.H. No.593, to the extent of eastern portion out of plot No.179/1, survey No. 313 and 312 of Ramkrishna Nagar, Parbhani. 3. Apprehending that defendant no.1 may sale suit property to others, the plaintiff moved application seeking injunction ( Exh.5). The learned Judge considered the application Exh. 5 and also application Exh.26 moved by the parties on its own merit and disposed of the same. Same is subject of challenge in the present proceedings. 4. During the course of submissions, Mr.Chavan, Counsel, informs that respondent no.1 herein has executed sale deed in favour of appellant herein ( original plaintiff) and the amount payable to the Bank is deposited before the learned executing Court, same is withdrawn by the Bank yesterday. Counsel for the Bank, respondent no.2, disputes the same for want of instructions. 3 5. The fact remains, the learned Judge, on analysis of evidence found that no case for grant of injunction was made out by the plaintiff and, consequently, did not entertain the prayers. The defendant no.1, indeed, had obtained loan from defendant no.2 and she mortgaged the property with the defendant no.2 by executing registered mortgage deed dt.16.6.2005 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Parbhani. 6. It is informed by the Counsel for the Bank, during pendency of the present proceedings, inspite of there being status quo, respondent no. 1 has executed sale deed in favour of appellant herein. Since plaintiff initially failed to establish his entitlement, the refusal to grant injunction by the learned Judge cannot be said to be a misplaced exercise. There is no merit. Appeal From Order is dismissed. No costs. Civil Application also disposed of. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/133-07ao 4