1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 682 of 2009 With Civil Application No.850 of 2009 Durgesh Developers. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Laxmi Builders. ..Respondent. Ms.Gouri Godse for the Appellant. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2009 PC : 1. This is an appeal from order which has been filed on behalf of the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale. The agreement of sale of certain property is said to be contained in an E- mails which have been exchanged between the defendant No.3 and one Mr. Patankar who is the Advocate for the plaintiff. The final offer is said to have been made by the defendant No.3, is said to 2 be contained in an E-mail dated 7.12.2007. This E- mail was addressed by the defendant No.3 to Advocate Mr. Patankar and the acceptance of this offer is said to be contained in a letter of E- mail dated 20.12.2007 addressed by Advocate Mr. Patankar to the defendant No.3. Subsequently, a suit was filed for specific performance and from the plaint it is evident that the specific performance was sought in respect of Plot Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 6 which have been particularized by area. The defendants have filed a written statement denying any privity of contract with the plaintiff and have contended that E-mails were exchanged with an advocate who had earlier acted for them and was not acting for the plaintiff. Even disregarding this case, I find that in the final offer which is sought to have been made by defendant No.3 in his E-mail dated 7.12.2007, there is no mention of the suit property. It is only in the letter of the advocate which is said to be an acceptance letter, the property was described as survey No.10/2. Even 3 in this letter, plot numbers or areas are not given. In my view, the so called contract does not particularize the property and does not mention the suit property. In such circumstances, the interim injunction against creating third party right has rightly been dismissed by the trial court. There is no substance in the A.O. and therefore, the same is dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.850 OF 2009 1. As the A.O. is dismissed, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) 4 5 6 7 CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. . Rule, returnable on 8th June, 2009. 2. Stand over to 8th June, 2009. The learned counsel for the state seeks time. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)