1 CAA 1016-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.72 OF 2009 The Associates Promoters and ..Applicants Builders V/s. Vishwanath Vinayak Gondhlekar ..Respondents & ors Mr.Vineet Naik i/b.Mr.S.R.Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.Deepak Chitnis, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. . On 29 th June, 2010, this Court passed the following order. Both the learned counsel for the parties agree that the three flats which now remain with the three partners of Respondent No.3 would not be disposed of or dealt with in any manner without first apprising the purchaser or transferee of the flats that they are subject matter of the suit and they will abide by the result of the suit and the transferee would not claim equity and Respondent No.3 would inform the court if such transfer are made by putting on the same record. 2 CAA 1016-10 2. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion. This order is passed by consent of the parties. 3. Appeal is according disposed of. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants now states that the client had not properly instructed the instructing Advocate and therefore, wrong statement was made before this Court that three flats were remained with the three partners of Respondent No.3 and they would not be disposed of or dealt with in any manner without first apprising the purchaser or transferee of the flats that they are subject matter of the suit and they will abide by the result of the suit. He points out that on 12 th May, 2009, 28 th May, 2009 and 28 th August, 2009, registered agreements of sale had been executed in favour of purchasers and the stamp duty has been paid as if it is conveyance. Full consideration is received. Now, first, the applicants should have taken care to give proper instructions to their lawyers. In any case, since the transfers are 3 CAA 1016-10 during the pendency of the litigation, the transferees can not claim any equitable rights and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will protect interest of the respondents. 3. In view of this, no modification of order dated 29 th June, 2010 is necessary. Civil Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)