( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 107 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11312 OF 2008 Shaikh Ajimoddin Shaikh Abdullah .. Appellant Versus Shaikh Abdullah Shaikh Bahoddin and ors. .. Respondents Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.V. Chandole h/f. Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 13.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar for the appellant and Adv. Shri S.V. Chandole h/f. Adv. Shri V.G. Sakolkar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This appeal from order is directed against rejection of temporary injunction application filed by the present appellant/plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 2007. Said application Exh.5 came to be dismissed on ( 2 ) 18.07.2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai. Both the advocates have taken me through the entire record. 2. It is case of the plaintiff/appellant that he has entered into agreement of sale with defendant No.1 on 14.11.1998 in respect of suit property, which is Survey No. 491 admeasuring 3 acres situated at Vasang Nagar Tanda, Tal. Parali Vaijnath. It is stated that the total consideration agreed was Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid as earnest money. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed. It is further stated that the application is opposed by the defendants by filing written statement at Exh.28. According to them the property was of defendant No.1. It is denied that he entered into any agreement of sale or received Rs. 2.50 lakhs as earnest money. Said transaction is denied. It is stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have constructed pukka house in the suit property and they are in possession of the property. So, it is prayed that the application for injunction be rejected. 3. In support of the application the appellant had ( 3 ) produced on record the agreement of sale, receipt f Rs. 2.50 lakhs and affidavit of his brother. The learned Trial Court referred to 7/12 extract which indicated that defendant No.1 was owner and possessor of the suit property. One affidavit of Shaikh Aminoddin Shaikh Abdulla is produced on record. He is brother of the plaintiff. The affidavits of two attesting witnesses who are said to be independent witnesses are not filed. The 7/12 extract clearly indicated that the plaintiff was not in possession. On behalf of defendants affidavits of Wahajoddin Mohammad Gaus Mulla, Shaikh Jainabbi Shaikh Abdulla and Shaikh Abdulla Shaikh Bahoddin were filed. Plots from the suit property were sold by defendant No.1 to various persons and the sale-deeds were produced on record. However, part of the properties are in actual possession Ansari Shakil Ahemad, Jafarkhan, Shaikh Mukim, Ismailkhan, Shaikh Khaled, Shaikh Mustafa and Wahajoddin. It is also noted that present plaintiff had previously filed Regular Civil Suit No. 195 of 1998 for injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of Survey No. 491 admeasuring 24 Acres 24 Gunthas and same was dismissed on merit. 4. Considering the reasons given by the Trial Court as ( 4 ) well as the arguments advanced before this Court and after considering the fact that part of the property is sold out to strangers, who are not parties to the suit, in my opinion this is not a case where any interference with discretion exercised by the Civil Court is required. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order No. 107 of 2008, Civil Application No. 11312 of 2008 does not survive and it is disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ao107.08