1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.81 OF 2007 (GOPALRAO LAXMANRAO PATLE & OTH. Vs RAJENDRA G. CHANDAK.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 29, 2008. 1. This appeal is directed against the injunction clamped on the appellants/ owners of the property by the learned trial Judge, restraining them from alienating the property. The appellants had allegedly agreed to sell the property to respondent for a sum of Rs.3,80,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was to be paid within three months of this document dated 03.10.2006 and the entire balance was to be paid within 6 to 8 months by which time the sale deed was to be executed. It seems that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is shown to have been paid to the appellants, which the appellants have received. 2 2. I have heard Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri Sunil Manohar, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the respondent had time and again in the plaint and the application for injunction expressed readiness and willingness to deposit the entire consideration. The appellants had specifically sought direction from the trial Court that the respondent/ plaintiff be directed to deposit the entire amount of consideration if an injunction was to be clamped restraining the appellants from disposing of the property. But without asking respondent/ plaintiff to deposit balance of consideration though the respondent had offered that he was ready to deposit the same, impugned order was passed. 4. Should the respondent want an injunction to remain in force, it is imperative that the respondent must deposit the entire amount of balance consideration. Otherwise the respondent should be satisfied with the protection provided by 3 doctrine of lis pendence. The learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff states that if the respondent is required to deposit the entire amount of balance consideration he should be given six weeks time. 5. Since grant of inunction in respect of property worth Rs.3,80,00,000/- on payment of a paltry sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is itself injurious to the interest of the appellants, it is imperative that the order would have to be modified and the injunction would be contingent upon the respondent depositing the balance amount of consideration within a period of six weeks. Rs. 1,50,00,000/- would have to be deposited within three weeks from today and the balance within six weeks. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this should result the trial of suit being delayed, since the suit is listed for evidence on 5th August, 2008. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants also states that his clients are also eager to dispose of the suit as early as possible and would not seek any adjournment before the trial Court. In view of this, following order is passed. 4 7. The impugned order is modified to read as under : The appellants/ original defendants are restrained from alienating the suit property by any mode of transfer to any third person till disposal of main suit, on respondent's depositing a sum of Rs.One Crore Fifty Lacs, within three weeks from this order and the entire balance of consideration within six weeks of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be invested by the trial Judge in a Nationalised Bank in order to earn maximum yield. The period of deposit shall be decided after hearing both the parties. The learned trial Judge shall take up the suit for expeditious hearing and shall dispose of the suit within six months. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RR.