1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2404/2010. Charandas Chandrabhan Meshram and others . -: versus :- Ashok Vithoba Meshram and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 07, 2010. Heard Shri P.S. Tembhare, learned counsel for petitioner. The petitioners/plaintiffs sought temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from creating third party interest during the pendency of title suit. The trial Court found absence of prima facie case, in as much as some of the plaintiffs had received sale consideration. It therefore, declined temporary injunction. Petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal and the Appellate Court found prima facie case. It further found that the plaintiffs had slept over their right for over 10 years and provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act were sufficient to take care of their interest, therefore, it also refused to grant temporary injunction. Shri Tembhare, learned counsel contends that once prima facie case is found and as the suit is within limitation, the observations of the Appellate Court that plaintiffs slept over their rights, are uncalled for and 2 provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act do not prevent grant of such temporary injunction. According to him, such grant is sustainable in present matter to avoid undue complications. He is relying upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court reported at AIR 1988 Calcutta 25 (Sm. Mukateshi Dawn and others .vrs. Haripada Muzumdar and another). I have perused both the orders. The Appellate Court has found that receipt of sale consideration was yet to be established and even if, it is presumed to have been paid, such receipt or consent by itself do not estopp petitioners from filing suit. The fact that the petitioners have moved after 10 years is not in dispute. The learned counsel has contended that after getting knowledge of impugned transfers, suit has been filed. The Courts have correctly approached the controversy. This court need not observe anything about the receipt of their respective portion of sale consideration by some of the plaintiffs, or its effect at this stage. I am satisfied that no case is made out warranting any interference, Writ Petition is thus dismissed, however, the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.601/2008 on the file of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur are expedited and that Court is directed to decide the same at the earliest possible. No costs. JUDGE 3 Rgd.