1 60 ao.1394.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1394 OF 2010 Shrikant Vyankatesh Kabade. ... Appellant Versus nandkumar Neminath Rukade and others. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr.T.S.Ingale i/b Mr.Nagesh Y. Chavan for the Appellant. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17 th March, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 The Appellant is the original plaintiff. The Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 17 th September, 2005 executed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the Appellant in respect of the agricultural land described in the plaint. Application for temporary injunction was made by the Appellant. The first prayer in the application for temporary injunction was for the injunction restraining the Respondents from disturbing the possession of the 2 60 ao.1394.10 Appellant over the suit land. The second prayer was for restraining the Respondents from creating third party rights. The second prayer has been granted under the impugned order. However, the prayer for protecting the alleged possession of the Appellant has been rejected. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was placed in possession on the basis of the suit agreement for sale. He pointed out that the Appellant has planted number of trees on the suit land. He submitted that the Commissioner’s report supports the case of the Appellant regarding possession. He pointed out that notwithstanding the suit agreement, the 1 st defendant has purported to executed the sale deed dated 12 th Jun, 2009. 4 I have considered the submissions. Out of the agreed consideration of Rs.2,65,000/­ provided under the suit agreement, the Appellant has admittedly paid only a sum of Rs.10,000/­. The agreement is silent as regards delivery of possession and infact, even according to the case of the Appellant, under the agreement, the Appellant was not 3 60 ao.1394.10 placed in possession before execution of sale deed. Considering these aspects, the trial Court has declined to grant discretionary relief of temporary injunction for protecting the alleged possession of the Appellant over the suit land. No case is made out for interference with the discretionary and equitable order of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5 Civil Application No.53 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]