IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 567 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2007 ADOLFO JOHN CARVAIHO ... Applicant Versus M/S. MARK BUILDERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR BISMARK D'SOUZA ... Respondent Mr. S. Karpe, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 13th January, 2009 P.C. The applicants have filed this application praying for handing over possession of the suit flat. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that he has agreed to purchase Flat No.5-A from the Applicants. There is a decree passed but the fact is that an appeal is preferred and the appeal has already been admitted by the Court. As far as handing over the possession of the flat is concerned, possession cannot be handed over by this court to the respondent. There are two reasons why possession cannot be handed over. There is no sale deed in favour of the applicant and no title has passed in favour and as such he is not entitled to seek possession. The second reason is that decree holder take possession through the executing court alone and not from the High Court.There is, therefore, no question of delivering possession of the flatby this court. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent be protected in the matter and, therefore, the appellant be directed that no third party interest in respect of the Flat No.5-A be created. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit flat No.5-A has already been disposed of and a sale deed is executed. A copy thereof is already on record. Since the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that an order be passed that no third party is created in Flat No.5-A. It is ordered that if at all the said flat No.5-A is not disposed of in any manner,iy shall not hereafter be disposed off so as to create third party interest. The application is accordingly disposed of. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. ah