: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.469 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.570 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.469 OF 2009 Namdev Sopan Naralre .. Appellant V/s. Vitthal Ishwara Narale & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sandesh D. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. T.S. Ingale for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, in Special Civil Suit No.149 of 2008, rejecting the application for interim relief filed by the appellant. One of the grounds for rejecting the application is that, prima facie, the appellant did not have any right over the land. An agreement of sale was arrived at between the plaintiff and the : 2 : defendant for sale of agricultural land. No sanction has been obtained under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “the said Act”]. In view of this, the learned trial Court has refused any injunction. 2. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Balu Baburao Zarole & Ors. vs. Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Bhikan & Ors., reported in 2001 (3) ALL MR 95, in which it is held that an agreement of sale can be specifically enforced even though the previous sanction under Section 43 of the said Act has not been obtained. The reasoning appears to be that because there is no execution of a conveyance, the property is not transferred by sale as envisaged in Section 43 of the said Act. It has therefore been held that the specific performance of an agreement for sale can be enforced. It appears that the trial Court has relied upon a judgment of this Court where a learned Single Judge has held in the case of Parshuram Kathod Gaikar vs. Pandu Mahadu : 3 : Hard & Anr., reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1570, that in view of the specific bar contained in Section 43 of the said Act, there can be no sale of land without such sanction being obtained. It has been held that the bar includes any attempt of doing so or execution of a document in pursuance thereto. 3. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Mr. Ingale states that the respondents have no intention of creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property during the pendency of the Suit. In view of this statement which is accepted, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. 4. Obviously, the trial Court will consider all the judgments referred to by the parties while deciding the Suit. 5. In view of the above, Civil Application No.570 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......