1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1764 OF 2010. Dilip Baliram Fokmare -: VERSUS :- Ghanshyam Bhikmchand Maheshwari and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2010. Heard Shri S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri C.A. Joshi, learned counsel for respondents. Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and sought temporary injunction to restrain respondent no.1 from creating any third party interest. The trial Court granted that relief. The Appellate Court after noticing some defects in agreement and grossly inadequate consideration pleaded by the petitioner, vacated that interim relief. 2 The learned counsel contends that merely because the agreement in favour of respondent no.2 is found to be earlier in time, the Appellate Court has reversed the order. Without prejudice to other arguments advanced, he also states that suit should be expedited or than the provision should be made to compensate the petitioner for the loss which petitioner would sustain in case the property is allowed to be transferred. Contention is, according to respondents value of the property is about Rs. 5,84,500/- and that amount should be asked to be deposited before the trial Court. Shri Joshi, learned counsel contends that the loss sustained by the petitioner [as alleged] cannot be more than Rs.95,000/- i.e. the amount at which he claims to have agreed to purchase the suit property. He further states that no prima facie case has been established as the affidavits of alleged attesting witness are not filed, hence the appreciation of the controversy by the Appellate Court at this stage cannot be interfered with. 3 It is apparent that the suit is for specific performance of contract and even, if, any third party interest is created, the same cannot prejudice the right of petitioner / plaintiff. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction in the present matter, particularly when the agreement in favour of respondent no.2 is earlier one and agreement in favour of petitioner has not been found prima facie established. At the request of learned counsel for petitioner, proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 74/2009 are however, expedited. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.