1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.487 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.487 OF 2009 Arihant Domestic Appliances Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant. Versus Ashok Bansilal Pagariya & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh for the Appellant. Mr. V.D. Bhavsar for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. Bhatia, J. DATED : March 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. According to the Plaintiff, the Respondent who is the owner of the suit property, had taken a loan from Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. Tri-Partite agreement had taken place in a meeting on 02.11.2004 and the minutes of that meeting were recorded. As per that agreement, the Plaintiff Appellant was to purchase the Chakan Roller Floor Mill (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. alongwith the assets consisting of 3.5 acres of land and shed built on it for consideration of Rs. 65,00,000/-. The Defendant was liable to pay Rs. 68,00,000/- to the Bank and therefore, the Plaintiff agreed to pay Rs. 65,00,000/- to the Bank and the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- 2 was to be paid by the Defendant to the Bank. The Plaintiff claims that he has paid not only Rs.65,00,000/- but complete amount of Rs. 68,00,000/- to the Bank. The Plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract in Special Civil Suit No.1440 of 2006. By Application Exhibit 5, it also sought temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property pending the suit. 3. The trial Court refused temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiff was trying to seek specific performance of the minutes of the meeting and that there was no separate agreement between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant pointed out that before the said meeting the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the said property for Rs. 98,00,000/- and this was incorporated in the letter dated 14.10.2004 written by the defendant to the plaintiff and that this fact was being suppressed by the plaintiff. After taking into consideration the circumstances, even if there may be substance in the contentions of the defendant, that needs to be decided only in the trial of the suit. Even if, the consideration was Rs. 98,00,000/- and not Rs. 65,00,000/-, still fact remains that the Plaintiff has already paid amount of Rs. 68,00,000/- to the Bank on behalf of the Defendant in view of the said agreement. Thus major amount has been already paid, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain status quo and that no third party interest should be created till decision of the suit. 3 4. For the above said reasons, Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Defendant shall not create any third party interest in the suit property, till decision of the suit. The trial Court shall expedite hearing of the suit and dispose of the same as far as possible within one year from this date. 5. As Appeal itself is finally disposed of, the Civil Application No. 595 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H. Bhatia, J.)