1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal against Order No. 138 of 2009 (Chandrakant Prakashchandra Khetan ...VERSUS... Brijmohan Chimanlal Bhartiya) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. M.G.Sarda, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. S.C.Mehadia, Advocate for the Respondent. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 03rd March, 2010. 1. This appeal is preferred against the interim order dated 18th July, 2009, by which the learned trial Court had partly allowed the application filed by the appellant for interim relief. 2. The appellant has filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the pieces of land at plot no.21, 22, 23, 24 and part of 25. According to the appellant, there was an oral agreement arrived at between the parties on 15th December, 2008 by which the appellant agreed to purchase and respondent agreed to sell these pieces of land for the total consideration of Rs.6,75,000/-. On the same day, the appellant paid Rs.75,000/- by cheque to the respondent as earnest money. It is alleged that since thereafter the respondent failed to complete the transaction of sale and therefore, the suit for specific performance was required to be filed. The respondent, on the other hand, denies that there was any agreement arrived at between the parties for sale of 2 the said pieces of land. According to the respondent, the agreement arrived at was in respect of sale of only half portion of plot no.25, towards which part consideration of Rs.75,000/- was paid. The learned trial court accepted the contention of the respondent and granted temporary injunction, limited to part of plot no.25. 3. Mr. Sarda, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that if payment of Rs.75,000/- is to be considered only towards the consideration of part of plot no.25, it would mean that the respondent was selling the land to the appellant @ Rs.196/- per sq.ft. This would be highly improbable since just four days prior to that i.e. on 11/12/2008, the respondent had sold plot no.26 to the appellant at the rate of Rs.49/- per sq.ft. 4. The respondent explains difference in the rate contending that the transaction in respect of plot no.26 was an old transaction arrived at the rate prevalent at the relevant time. The respondent relies upon two registered Sale Deeds, one dated 26/12/2008 and the other dated 19/6/2007, selling pieces of land in the same area at much higher rate. Considering these facts of the case, the learned trial court has disbelieved prima facie the claim of the appellant of agreement of sale in respect of 5 pieces of land. 5. I find no infirmity in the order. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale