Kambli 1 App (l) No.907 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ... APPEAL (L) NO.907 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.479 OF 2010 ... Nippani Lakshmikanthan Ravichandra ...Appellant v/s. Milap Saremal Jain and others ...Respondents ... Dr.B.B.Saraf i/b Gosy Jorab & Associates for the Appellant. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Advocate i/b R.A.K.Najam-Es-Sani for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.T.Kukreja i/b Mukesh B. Bhagat for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED: 19th January,2011 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal, a party who is not a party to the civil suit, challenges the order dated 16th December, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 3474 of 2010. Admittedly, there was an order of temporary injunction made against the Respondent No.3 restraining him from alienating the property. He in blatant breach of that order Kambli 2 App (l) No.907 of 2010 transferred the property in favour of the Appellant. The Appellant surprisingly even without issuing any notice in any newspaper about his intention to purchase the property purchased the property. In this situation, the learned single Judge has made an order for appointment of a Receiver. 2. In our opinion, as the transfer in favour of the Appellant is clearly in breach of the order of temporary injunction, even if ultimately it is found that the injunction order was wrongly made, it cannot be said that any title is conveyed by the Respondent No.3 to the Appellant, because on the date on which the transaction was entered into the Respondent No.3 had no power to transfer the property. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly appointed Receiver on the property so that persons who are involved in committing the breach of the court’s order do not get any advantage. 3. The submission of the Appellant that lis-pendence was not registered by the original Plaintiff, in our opinion, has Kambli 3 App (l) No.907 of 2010 no substance. Because, admittedly there was an injunction order made by the court restraining the Respondent No.3 from transferring the property. Normally, now a days nobody purchases the valuable property without giving notice in the newspaper. But the Appellant purchased the property admittedly without giving notice in any newspaper and he is not in a position to offer any explanation as to why he did not follow this common practice. In our opinion, this creates a doubt in the mind of the court that the Appellant was in collusion with the Respondent No.3. In our opinion, no interference with the order impugned in the Appeal is called for. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)