1 AO 368 / 2010 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 368 OF 2010 Smt. Durgibai sudam Choudhari & Ors. .. Appellants V/s Laxmikant Gajanan Agarwal & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this appeal, the appellants (original plaintiffs) challenges the order dated 2nd December 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai, rejecting their application for injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property. 3. The plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property. By an agreement of sale dated 25th May 1995, they agreed to 2 AO 368 / 2010 sell the suit property to the respondent no.1. They also gave a power of attorney to the respondent no.2. In pursuance of the said power of attorney, the respondent no. 2 executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondent no.1 on or about 26th December 2004. The appellants thereafter filed a suit for setting aside the alienation on the ground that they had not given the power of attorney to the respondent no.2 and, therefore, he had no authority to execute the sale deed. In the suit, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from alienating the suit property. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants initially submitted that only Rs.5 lakhs were paid and the balance consideration was not paid. Perusal of the written statement, copy of which is handed over to me by the counsel for the appellants, discloses that thereafter Rs.7 lakhs were paid by the respondent no.1 to the appellants. On being asked, counsel for the appellants submitted that Rs.7 lakhs were received by the appellants but the payment was not made in time. This case has not been made out in 3 AO 368 / 2010 the plaint or the application for injunction. Since the respondent no.1 has purchased the property and even paid the consideration, injunction cannot be granted restraining him from dealing with the suit property. The appellants can register a notice of lis pendence and claim protection under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)