1 ao678-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.678 OF 2010 Bshir Babasaheb Jahagirdar .. Appellant V/s. Babasaheb Kondu Jahagirdar & Ors. .. Respondents ...... Mr. S. J. Jadhwar a/w. Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for the appellant. Mr. V. M. Thorat for the respondents. ...... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 3, 2011 P.C. In this Appeal, appellant is the original plaintiff. An Application made by the appellant­original plaintiff for temporary injunction has been rejected by the impugned order. In paragraph No.26 of the impugned order, the learned Judge observed thus : “ It has been contended by the plaintiff that on 2.6.2009, he signed one document on the instance of defendant No1. Its contents are not true and correct. Plaintiff did not produce copy of that document. Plaintiff did not plead the material fact about the contents of that document. Plaintiff did not plead the material circumstances in which the said documents comes to be executed. Plaintiff did not contend material fact how that documents if fraudulent one. The material fact of fraud has not been pleaded by plaintiff. I have carefully peruse the notice issued by the plaintiff. 2 ao678-10 It is crystal clear from the contents of notice that on 2.6.2009 at the time of execution of alleged document, plaintiff had received Rs.10 Lacs from defendant No.2 and 3 by way of cheque. Such a material fact has not been pleaded in a plaint. Plaintiff did not plead material fact in which circumstances and context he has received an amount of Rs. 10 Lac from defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It is crystal clear that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this Court.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the first respondent has alienated a part of the suit property and, therefore, it is necessary to restrain the respondents from creating third party rights in respect of the suit properties. 3. Perusal of paragraph No.26 of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Judge has declined to grant discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction on the ground of suppression of material fact namely that a sum of Rs.10 Lacs has been received by the plaintiff from the second and third defendants by a cheque. The other observations made in the said paragraph is that though the appellant has admitted that on 2nd June, 2009, he signed one document at the instance of first respondent, no specific case that the document is fraudulent is made out. 3 ao678-10 4. In my view what is held in paragraph No.26 is certainly sufficient to deny the equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction to the appellant. The suit filed by the appellant is pending. Therefore, even if third party rights are created during the pendency of the suit, the same will be subject to final outcome of the suit. 5. Subject to what is observed above, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. 6. Civil Application No.868 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 7. Hearing of the suit is expedited. JUDGE