{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.50 OF 2009 Udhav Lodharam Bhatija D-23, Vir Savarkar Road, Vikhroli, Mumbai R/o Sindhi Colony, Sayare Dist. Ahmednagar. APPELLANT VERSUS 01- Laxmi Naresh Chandnani R/o 18, Bhairasiya Road, Bhopal[MP] Sindhi Colony, Sayare 02- Nirmala Latnarayan Chandnani R/o as above. 03- Ashok Hiranandani Hariram. R/o F.No.1125-709 Kothawada Warangal, AP & C/o Bansilal Israni 45-Ad. Colony, Idsah Hills, Bhopal, MP. RESPONDENTS. *** Shri S.P.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for petitioner Shri R.F.Totala, advocate for respondents *** Coram : S.P.DAVARE, J. Date: 16th June 2009. P.C.: 01- Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {2} 02- The appellant / original plaintiff has preferred present Appeal From Order assailing the order dated 05-03-2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon in Special Civil Suit No.40/2008 thereby rejecting the application Ex.6 of the plaintiff, therein, which was preferred by the plaintiff for temporary injunction requesting to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property till disposal of the main suit. 03- At the outset, the appellant / original plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No.40/2008 against the respondents / original defendants in respect of property gat No.10812 admeasuring 01 Hector 70 R situated at village Nighoj Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahemadnagar. It is alleged by the appellant / plaintiff that an amount of Rs.1 crore was paid to the defendant nos.1 & 2 in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sell. The plaintiff contends that the defendants executed a document on stamp paper of Rs.100/- for the consideration of the said amount. It is contention of the appellant / plaintiff that he is ready and willing to comply his part of agreement towards sale- deed. But the defendants are neglecting to perform their part of agreement hence the plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No.40/2008 for specific performance of the said agreement and preferred application Ex.6 for temporary injunction from creating third party interest in the suit property the disposal of the main suit. However the said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon vide order passed on 05-03-2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the appellant / original plaintiff has preferred present Appeal From Order assailing the said order. 04- At the outset, the basis and foundation of the present suit filed by the appellant / original plaintiff, are the two documents i.e., receipt dated {3} 30th Jan., 2007 by which it was agreed to sell the suit land by defendant no.3 in favour of plaintiff in capacity of power of attorney hold of defendant nos.1 & 2 in consideration of Rs.3,85,00,000/- and the defendant no.3 accepted an amount of Rs.5 lac towards advance. The another document titled as a receipt dated 19/02/2007 which speaks about the agreement between both the parties regarding sale of suit land as per receipt dated 30/01/2007 and acceptance of Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,00,000/- on 19/02/2007 by defendants no.1 & 2 out of total consideration of Rs.3,85,00,000/-. 05- Curiously enough although the said transaction was for a huge amount of Rs.3,85,00,000/-, no agreement of sale was executed between the parties for the reasons best known to them. On perusal of the impugned order dated 05-03-2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon, apparently, he has dealt with both the receipts dated 30/01/2007 and 19/02/2007 and found that said receipts are not free from doubt and appear to be suspicious and the reasoning given by the learned judge to arrive at the said conclusion, apparently, cannot be faulted with. 06- Apart from the said position, it is material to note that the appellant / original plaintiff is not in actual possession of the suit property, even on the basis of the said receipts. Considering the said aspect, the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove prima- facie case and balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant / original plaintiff. It is observed by the learned Judge that even if there is any irreparable loss, it would be compensated in terms of money and no interference is required in the said findings considering the reasoning mentioned therein. Besides, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would take care of the rights of the parties if they exist. {4} 07- In the circumstances, apparently no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon on Ex.6 in Special Civil Suit No.40/2008 and consequently the present Appeal From Order bears no substance and therefore same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. 08- However, it is made clear that the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations while deciding Special Civil Suit No.40/2008 on merits. [S.P.DAVARE] JUDGE. /mda/0609/ao50.09