FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.133 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13558 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2 This appeal from order takes exception to the order dated 17th August, 2010 passed by the C.J.S.D., Jalna below Exh.5 in Spl. Civil Suit No.27/2009. The learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, relied on the grounds taken in the appeal and he invited my attention to the written statement filed by the respondent and submitted that contradictory statements have been made in the written statement. The respondent has admitted that the amount has been received by him and only an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is yet to be received. He further submitted that the respondent has passed receipt in favour of the appellant that he has received the amount. The learned Counsel, in support of his contention, further invited my attention to the averments made in the appeal memo and submitted that to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, it is necessary to pass order against the respondent directing him not to create third party right in the suit property. He submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if he is restrained from not creating third party rights. 3 I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. I have carefully perused the reasonings recorded by the Court below while rejecting the Exh.5. In para 6 of the impugned order, the trial Court has commented and observed about the alleged agreement of sale. It is not for this Court to go into details of the agreement of sale. Suffice it to observe that the trial Court has observed in the said para that there are scoring and overwriting in the alleged agreement to sell. It is further observed that though the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant had agreed to execute the registered sale deed on receiving the balance amount of sale consideration on obtaining the permission for sale from the District Court, this condition or the stipulation does ot find place in the alleged agreement of sale. So far as overwriting and scoring in the agreement of sale is concerned, the learned trial Judge, in paragraph 6, has commented in detail and it is not necessary to repeat the same in this order. The lower Court, after taking into consideration the submissions of the appellant and also the reply by other side, has in unequivocal terms observed that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands. There is overwriting and scoring in the alleged agreement of sale and therefore, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the appellant. 4 Therefore, in my opinion, in the light of findings in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order, the Court below has rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. There is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the court below. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. Civil Application also stands dismissed in view of dismissal of the appeal. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 11.10.2010. PLK/*