-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2009 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2009 IN A.O. NO. 14 OF 2009 Baban Namdev Saste .. Appellant. (Org.Plaintiff) V/s. Pratap Dashrath Jagtap, since deceased .. Respondent. by his heirs : (Org.Defendant) 1A. Usha Nagendra Singh & Ors. --- Mr.Sandeep S. Salunkhe for the Appellant. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Respondent. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 02nd MAY, 2009 DATED : 02nd MAY, 2009 DATED : 02nd MAY, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The appellant, the original plaintiff, has filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant -plaintiff filed an application at Exh. ‘5’ for temporary injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession in the suit property and not to create any third -: 2 :- party interest in the suit property. In order to claim interim injunction, the appellant relied upon the receipt dated 18.10.1995 under which the respondent allegedly agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant. The appellant also relied on writing dated 20.07.2006 signed by the son of the respondent. 3. The first document dated 18.10.1995 does not disclose that the possession of the suit land was handed over to the appellant. The second document dated 20.07.2006 is signed on behalf of the owner -Pratap Dashrath Jagtap by his son Anil Pratap Jagtap. The trial court after perusing the documents concluded that the appellant is not in possession of the suit property and therefore, it was pleased to reject the prayer for temporary injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering in the possession of the suit property. 4. So far as the relief of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent from creating third party interest is concerned, Mr. Tajane, learned counsel for the respondent, after taking instruction from his client, who is present in the court, makes a statement that the respondents shall not sell or transfer the suit property or create any third party interest without prior permission by -: 3 :- the trial court. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Appeal from Order and the same is dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the A.O., civil application will not survive and the same is disposed of as such. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....