1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION A.O.NO.853/2008 WITH C.A.NO.1024/2008 Mohan Bhikalal Shaha Appellant Vs. Chitresh Chimanlal Mehata Respondent Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for the appellant Mr.Jai V.Mhaskar and Nitin Muley for respondent CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR,J. DATE : 10th December,2008 P.C. 1] The impugned order warrants no interference . Despite the plaintiff's/respondent's assertion regarding possession the trial Court has granted only an injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from encumbering the property ,etc.. Prima facie it appears that the possession continues with the defendant. There is nothing in the agreement to suggest that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff /respondent . In the suit for specific performance the plaintiff's rights are adequately protected by the injunction. The property in dispute is agriculture land . The respondent intends developing the property. Thus, pending the trial of the suit there is no warrant for allowing the respondent to be in possession especially when the possession of the respondent is not established. 2 2] An oral application for directing the respondent to deposit the entire sale consideration out of Rs.56 lacs is rejected . I see no reason why the respondent who has not had the benefit of the agreement ought to be burdened with the obligations thereof at the interlocutory stage. A.O.is accordingly dismissed.