1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.899 OF 2008 Smt.Hausabai Bharat Thakur ..Appellant V/s Smt.Meena Hasmukh Seth & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr. N.V. Walawalkar Sr.Counsel i/by Shri Jeetendra Sachdeo for the applellant.. Mr. Pankaj Shah for respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 17th August, 2009. PC 1 This is an appeal filed by the original defendant no.1 against an order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.8.2003. The defendant no.1 was the owner of the plot of land which was acquired by defendant no.2-CIDCO. In return, defendant no.2 CIDCO was to allot him 12.5% of the original area elsewhere. By an agreement dated 19.8.2003 the present defendant no.1 assigned her rights to receive the said area in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,68,000/-. The agreement itself mentioned receipt of Rs. 1,25,000/- as earnest money. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance apprehending that the agreement will not be honoured. In her reply, defendant no.1 disputes payments as said to have been made by the plaintiff. However, it is difficult to 2 deny the receipt of payment of Rs.1,25,000/- since the receipt of the said amount is reflected in the agreement itself. It was contended that specific performance of such an agreement cannot be granted by the Court because the allotment in favour of the defendant no.1 is not yet made by CIDCO. Even assuming this is true, the question as to whether commitment made by the agreement can be fulfilled on subsequent allotment is a matter that requires consideration. It is also the case of defendant no.1 that she has not executed the agreement. However, her averments do not specifically mention that the thumb impression on the agreement is not her’s. Further she has accepted that some of the amounts have been paid by cheques which according to her were left with her. She has not given any explanation as to why these cheques have been encashed. In my view, the rights of the plaintiff will have to be protected pending the disposal of the suit. The order of the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse and does not require any interference. Appeal from Order is therefore, dismissed (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3