.. 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 186 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2009 Shri Mahendra Deepchand Jain .... Appellant V/s. Shri Janardan Atmaram Patil & Ors .... Respondents Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, senior counsel i/b Mr. Ramesh A. Karale for the appellant. Shri Abhay Abhayankar a/w Shri Akhilesh Dubey a/w Shri Vagish R. Mishra for respondent nos. 1 to 6. Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha a/w Mr. A.A. Khan i/b M.Tripathi & Co. For respondent no. 7. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 4TH MAY 2009. P.C. Heared learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondent no. 7 is the original defendant no. 7. The plaintiff’s father entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.Bharmar on 26th May 1969 in respect of suit property. In the year 1972, said Mr. Bharmar sold out the suit property to respondent no. 1-defendant no.1. The plaintiff thereafter give notice to said Mr. Bharmar in the year 1972 only. The respodnent no. 1 to 6/defendant nos. 1 to 6 sold out the suit property to respondent no. 7-defendant no. 7 on 20th July 2006 in pursuant of the compromise decree. 3. The plaintiff, for the first time, in the year 1991, filed suit for specific performance. This suit was filed against said Bharmar and respondent no. 1- defendant no. 1. The suit is dismissed for default and SKT/- .. 2 .. at present plaintff’s restoration application is pending for consideration. 4. The present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for declaration that consent decree obtained by respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 7 in Special Civil Suit No. 244 of 2006 is illegal, unlawful, fradulent and amounted to misrepresenting the facts and legal position. The plaintiff also prayed declaration that the agreement dated 25th May 1969 between his father and said Bharmar is valid subsisting and binding upon the respondents. In the present suit, plaintiff also filed the application below exhibit 5 for temporary injunction restraining respondnets from dealing with, disposing of and constructing anything of any nature in the suit property. This application came to be rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 10th November 2008. 5. It is not be disputed that the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff is based on an agreement of sale dated 26th May 1969. The plaintiff after the transaction in favour of defendant no. 1 by his Vendor gave notice to the original Vendor-Bharmar in the year 1972 itself and thereafter kept mum for the long period of 19 years and ultimately in the year 1991 filed suit for specific performance. The said suit is also dismised for default and restoration application is pending. Facts remains that the plaintiff or his predecessors in title were not deligent in prosecuting SKT/- .. 3 .. their rights. 6. The respondent no. 7 has obtained development rights in respect of suit property in pursuance of the compromise decree in Special Civil Suit No. 247 of 2006 under registered agreement of development executed on 10th July 2006 for the total consideration of Rs. 21 crores. The statement is made by Mr. Rajadhyaksha learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 that construction is started and third party interest is already created in respect of suit property. Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any interim relief and thereafter no fault can be found in the impugned order. Hence Appeal from Order is dismissed. 7. In view of the disposal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application will not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. (R.V.MORE, J.) SKT/-