IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.392 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.481 OF 2006 Shri Rajendrasinh Bharatsinh Parmar ...Appellant Versus Shri Narendrasinh Bharatsinh Parmar & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.R.C.Shah for Appellant. Mr.A.M.Saraogi for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JUNE 22, 2006. JUNE 22, 2006. JUNE 22, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I find no reason to depart from the opinion expressed by the Court below as noted, particularly in Paragraph 10 onwards in the impugned Judgment to sustain the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below that no case : 2 : for grant of interim relief was made. 3. Counsel for the Appellant, however, contends that rejecting the relief as claimed in its entirety by the Trial Court having regard to the fact situation of the present case, is inappropriate. According to him, the private Defendant/Respondent No.2 will have to be put to some terms even if allowed to carry out the construction activity on the suit site. According to the Appellant, any construction activity in respect of the suit property undertaken by the Respondent No.2 will have to be made subject to the outcome of the Suit. Similarly, the Respondent No.2 will have to be restrained from transferring or creating third party rights in the suit property. 4. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.2 has no intention to dispose of the property or to transfer the same in favour of third party as presently advised. That assurance is accepted. The Respondent No.2 Counsel also submits that the Respondent No.2 will abide by the : 3 : final orders to be passed in the Suit. In other words, the construction undertaken by the Respondent No.2 will be subject to the outcome of the final orders to be passed in the Suit. 5. Appeal and the cognate Civil Application disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.