1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal against Order No.95 of 2010 (Shri Natthu s/o Umraosha Uike v. Shri Ramesh s/o Kailash Giri) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for Appellant. Shri S.R. Bhongade, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 21 st September, 2010 1. This appeal from order challenges the order passed below Exhibit 5 on 25-3-2010 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, allowing the application Exhibit 5 filed by the respondent/plaintiff and restraining the appellant/defendant from alienating or creating third-party interest in the suit property till the decision of the suit. 2. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the agreement of sale was executed on 18-5-2007 for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of the suit property by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On that date, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. Thereafter, on the date of the execution of the supplementary agreement on 16-11-2007, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 31-3-2008, the 2 plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.95,000/- in the defendant’s loan account in Shikshak Sahakari Bank, Nagpur. It is thus not disputed that the defendant has received the total amount of Rs.3,70,000/- from the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 18-5-2007. It is also not in dispute that by an agreement dated 16-11-2007, the parties had agreed to extend the date for execution of sale-deed up to 18-9-2009. Subsequently, it is discovered that the property in question was mortgaged to Shikshak Sahakari Bank, Nagpur. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that if the relief of injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant, and on the basis of such finding, the order of injunction has been passed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the prices of the properties have gone up from 18-5- 2007. According to him, the amount of interest will also have to be paid by the plaintiff and that has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. 4. After going through the order passed by the Trial Court, no perversity is pointed out to this Court in recording the findings of the Trial Court. The plaintiff has parted with substantial amount of about 40% of the total consideration. The question of payment of interest can be considered by the Trial Court at the time of decision of the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is ready and willing to clear all the dues outstanding against the defendant to get the sale-deed executed in his favour. 3 6. In view of this, I do not find any fault in the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl