1 caf3960 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3960 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1506 OF 2010 Kailas Vasudev Bagal ...Applicant vs. Popat Rangnath Dete & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.A.N.Katkar i/b Mr.Dilip Bodake for the applicant Mr.P.D.Pise for the respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the unsuccessful plaintiff who is the appellant. The applicant filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement dated 30th September 2005 for sale of the suit property. In the suit, the applicant claimed that he was put in possession of the suit property in part performance of the suit agreement. By the impugned decree, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit. The trial Court has disbelieved the case of the applicant regarding the execution of agreement for sale. The trial Court also rejected the case of the applicant that he was placed in possession. During the pendency of the suit, an application for temporary injunction was made at Exh.5 on which notice was issued. It appears that the said application was not pressed thereafter. Therefore, till the disposal of the suit, there was no injunction granted in favour of 2 caf3960 the applicant. 2 Considering the findings recorded by the Trial Court and considering the fact that right from the year 2006, there is no interim relief operating in favour of the applicant, no interim relief can be granted in this Appeal. However, if the respondents create any third party rights in respect of the suit property, the same will be subject to final outcome of the Appeal. Before creating third party rights, the respondents shall inform the proposed transferees about pendency of this Appeal. 3 Subject to what is observed above, no case for grant of interim relief is made out. Application is rejected. JUDGE