IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2007 1. Shri Gangaram Bhimaji Pawar & Anr. ...Applicants/Appellants.. v. 1.Shri Shyamsunder Jagannath Agarwal & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo, adv. For the Applicants. Mr.A.M.Joshi, adv. For the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th July , 2009 P.C. 1 This is an application filed by the appellants. The appeal is against the concurrent findings of the facts holding that the appellant is not in possession. Decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the respondent nos.2 to 5. By order dated 8.8.2007 while issuing a rule , this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo. However, thereafter, Second Appeal itself came to be dismissed in default and admittedly, the respondent nos.2 to 5 have executed sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1 as per the decree. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is still in possession and, therefore, it is necessary to protect his - 2- possession. It will be difficult to accept his contention particularly in view of the concurrent finding of the facts that the appellant/applicant is not in possession. Therefore, he can not be granted injunction in the present application against the respondents. As far as his prayer for the stay to the execution of the decree is concerned, it has become infructuous because of the execution of sale deed. 2 Therefore, this application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2007 Shri Shyamsunder Jagannath Agarwal ...Applicant. v. Shri Gangaram B. Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.M.Joshi, adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo, adv. For the Respondent No.1 CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th July , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that sale deed is already executed in his favour in execution of the decree and now he may be permitted to make construction on the open land. It appears that he has purchased the property with full knowledge of the litigation. Second Appeal filed by he respondent no.1 is admitted and is pending wherein he has challenged the findings, the decree for specific performance. In such circumstances, if permission is granted to make construction to the present applicant, who is the respondent no.1 in the appeal, it will create further complications. Therefore, civil application - 2 - no.316 of 2008 stands rejected. (J.H.Bhatia, J.)