1 caf2410-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2410 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2011 T. P. Alexander .. Applicant V/s. Dashrath Narayan Parande & Ors .. Respondents ..... Mr. Mohan Pungliya for the applicant. Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. The Appeal preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff has been admitted for final hearing. The trial Court has declined to grant relief of specific performance of an agreement for the sale of the suit property and has decreed the prayer for refund of consideration with interest thereon. 2. This application for injunction made by the applicant was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents by pointing out that though in the plaint the entire survey No.82/3A admeasuring 1H and 59 Ares has been described as the suit property, the document on which the applicant is relying upon is in respect of only an area of 80 Ares. 2 caf2410-11 3. In view of the aforesaid submission made on the last date, time was granted to the counsel for the respondents to take instructions whether the respondents can earmark an area of 80 Ares so that the interim relief can be confined to the earmarked area. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that he is unable to make any such statement. He has tendered on record an affidavit dated 17th October, 2011 of the first respondent. The affidavit discloses that under the development plan, a part of the suit property admeasuring 40R has been reserved for a primary school and another part ademasuring 7R is reserved for road widening. It is contended that another part of the property ademasuring 40R has been sold to a third party in the year 1988 and a small portion admeasuring 3R has been sold to a third party in the year 1999. The affidavit discloses that an area of 17R is covered by the structure of the respondents. It is stated that the open land is only to the extent of 52R. 4. As the Appeal has been admitted, a limited interim relief deserves to be granted to the applicant, by restraining the respondents from creating any further third party rights in respect of the suit property and from parting with possession of the suit property. If any construction is carried out on the suit property 3 caf2410-11 by the respondents, the same will be subject to the final outcome of the Appeal. The respondents shall not claim equity on the basis of the construction, if any, carried out during the pendency of this Appeal. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. Till the disposal of the Appeal, the respondents are hereby restrained by an order of temporary injunction from creating any further third party rights in respect of the suit property and from parting with possession of the suit property in favour of any third party. The construction which may be carried out on the suit property during the pendency of the Appeal shall be subject to the final outcome of the Appeal. The respondents shall not claim any equity on the ground they have been allowed to carry out construction during the pendency of the Appeal. ii. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)