A.O.No.121 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.121 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8798 OF 2011 Satish s/o Ranchhoddas Daulatabadkar, Age 44 years, Occu.Business, R/o Kasuparakh Mohalla, Supari Hanuman Road, Aurangabad ..APPELLANT (Orig.Plaintiff) VERSUS 1. Mangal d/o Balkrishna Naik, Mangal w/o Nandkumar Sabnis, Age 52 years, Occu.Household 2. Nandkumar s/o Madhukarrao Sabnis, Age 56 years, Occu.Service Both R/o Block No.C/4-14, Snehnagar, Railway Station road, Aurangabad 3. Bhaskar s/o Dhondiba Jogdand, Age 62 years, Occu.Business, R/o Plot No.8, Survey No.76, Itkheda, Taluka and Dist.Aurangabad 4. The Commissioner, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS (Orig.Defendant Nos.1 to 4) Mr M.D.Joshi, Advocate for appellant Mr P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Mr S.P.Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 served Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are formal parties. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16th November 2011 A.O.No.121 of 2011 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. Admit. 2. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance and also sought exchange of sale deed, as there was mis-description of plot, which was sold to the plaintiff. An application below Exh.23 in Special Civil Suit No.4 of 2011 was moved by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction. Rejection thereof by order dated 20.6.2011 is questioned. 3. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint proceeds that there was a sale deed executed by the respondent in respect of Plot No.6, as referred therein admeasuring 294.61 square meters, executed on 29.4.2003. According to him, indeed he agreed terms related to purchase of Plot No. 16 by the plaintiff but the description of Plot No.6 was erroneously given. The map annexed to the sale deed though refers to Plot No.6, however, the location is certainly of Plot No.16 of the old lay out approved in the year 2000 (Page 54). 4. On the contrary, the respondent canvassed, it was Plot No.6 as per old sanctioned lay out, which was sold to the plaintiff of which he is in possession. The learned Senior Counsel also informs, the plaint is silent as to possession of the plaintiff over Plot No.6. He has even not taken care in spite of affidavit-in-reply of the respondent, informing that plaintiff A.O.No.121 of 2011 3 is in possession of Plot No.6. The controversy about furnishing the revised lay out is also explained, according to him, the parties were to act pursuant to the lay out sanctioned on 3.3.2000, which was approved. The revised lay out admittedly is disapproved. 5. Considering these aspects, the request of the plaintiff to stall further transaction by the defendant/respondent concerning other properties and particularly Plot No.15, of which an advertisement was issued, is certainly not warranting to claim the injunction in his favour. The rejection of application below Exh.23 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, is in tune to the pleadings and available record. No interference in the said order. Appeal from Order lacs merit. Hence, dismissed with Civil Application. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/121.11ao)