1 Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL LODGING NO.291 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2605 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2309 OF 2008 Smt. Shobha Arvind Patel )..PETITIONER Versus M/s.Pashupatinath Construction & Ors. )...RESPONDENTS Mr. M.M. Vashi with Mr. Santosh Narwade i/b. M.P. Vashi & Associates. Mr. S.K. Srivastava i/b. S.K. Srivastava & Co., for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.R. Shaikh, for respondent No.4. Mr. R.D. Soni, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : 21ST JUNE, 2010 P.C. This appeal by the orginal plaintiff against the order dated 5th April, 2010 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Motion and consequently rejected the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff herein. It was the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff that her late husband had entered into a contract with respondent No.1 for purchase of an apartment and for that certain monies were paid. The entire consideration could not be paid on account of intervening circumstances. They have paid total of Rs.3.05 lakhs at the time of execution of the agreement leaving a balance of Rs.3.88 lacs. 2 According to the Developer-Respondent NO.1 they had called on the husband of the plaintiff to make payment of instalments and it was informed that in default the agreement would be terminated. The Agreement was thereafter entered into with Defendant NO.5 and 6 who initially made payment of Rs.1.00 lac at the time of execution of the agreement and later Rs.12.00 lacs when they were put in possession. There is on additional fact namely that defendant Nos.1 to 3 had transferred the flat for a sum of Re.1/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3. According to the Counsel for Defendant NO.4 they are the original landlord on whose plot the said building has been constructed. Admittedly the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are in possession of the premises. 2. The question is whether in these circumstances the learned Judge was right in refusing the relief prayed for. In our opinion, the order does not suffer from any illegality and to that extent the learned Judge was right in rejecting the relief as prayed for. However, considering the reliefs as prayed for, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are restrained from alienating or creating third party rights during the pendency of the suit subject to the condition that in the event they seek to alienate or transfer that will not be done without the leave of this Court. Appeal disposed off accordingly. ( R.V.MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)