1 AO-769-781-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 769 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPLIC ATION NO. 240 OF 2010 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 781 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 969 OF 2010 A.O. NO. 769 OF 2010 M/s. Rehab Housing Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant vs. Shri Kunal Kumar Ghodke & Ors. Respondents A.O. NO. 781 OF 2010 M/s. Rehab Housing Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant vs. Shri Shankar Bhaguji Ghodke & Ors. Respondents Shri P.S.Dan,,Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.B.Gujar Advocate, for the respondents 1 to 6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 11th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the relevant documents and the impugned order. 2 AO-769-781-10.sxw 2. The plaintiff/appellant claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase certain agricultural lands situated at Pune from the defendants/respondents under two separate agreements dated 13.7.2006 at the rate of Rs.4,55,000/- per acre. Even though the plaintiff had offered to pay some amount as earnest money, the defendants refused to accept ass they wanted whole of the consideration amount at a time and therefore full consideration amount was to be paid only at the time of execution of sale deed. As the lands had come to the defendants under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, they could not execute sale deeds without obtaining necessary permission from the Collector. As per the agreement the plaintiff approached the Collector for permission and that permission was granted on 3.10.2006. As per clause 5 of that order, the sale deed could be executed within 3 months from the date of permission. Permission expired on 3.1.2007. Within that period no sale deed was executed. The plaintiff moved an application on 8.1.2007 for extension of time for completion of contract on the ground that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the sale deed could not be executed. On that application, an order was passed on 25.1.2007 extending time for completion of the transaction by one month. However, within the extended period of one month also sale deed could not be executed. On 20.4.2009, the plaintiff filed two suits 3 AO-769-781-10.sxw for specific performance of contract in respect of the said two agreements and in those suits, they filed applications marked Ex.5 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in respect of the suit properties in both the suits. That application was opposed. The trial Court rejected the applications. The said orders are challenged by the original plaintiffs in these two appeals. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants contended that on 31.1.2007, the plaintiff had got prepared the sale deeds on the franked stamp papers showing his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. However, taking overall stock of the case, it appears that firstly, the defendants have not received any earnest money at the time of alleged agreement for sale because they were in need of money and they wanted the whole consideration amount to be paid by them at a time. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Revenue Authorities for permission for sale of the land. Permission was granted for 3 months. That permission expired on 3.1.2007. No valid reason is given as to why the sale deed could not be executed during that period. Thereafter, the application was made for extension of time and that extension of one month was granted. The extended period also expired on 23.2.2007. Even though the plaintiff claims that he had got prepared the sale deed on franked stamp paper on 31.1.2007, there is 4 AO-769-781-10.sxw no document to show that he had called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed within the said period of one month. Thus, the sale deed was not executed during extended period also. He issued notice to the defendants on 25.3.2007 i.e. one month after the expiry of the extended period of permission. As no permission was in existence on 25.3.2007, or thereafter, it was not possible for the defendants to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. After having issued the notice on 23.5.2007, the plaintiff kept silent for about two years and then they woke up from the slumber and filed suit for specific performance on 20.4.2009. There is no explanation for this delay. It appears that the plaintiff is interested in getting the property at the rates settled in July 2006 now by getting a decree for specific performance of contract for which they had not paid a single rupee as earnest money. Prices of property are shooting up like anything. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I do not see any fault with the impugned order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The question whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract will be an issue in the suit. At least, at this stage, prima facie, it does not appear that he was ready and willing to preform his part of the contract within the reasonable time which was granted by the Revenue authorities. Therefore, I do not see any valid reason to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court. 5 AO-769-781-10.sxw 4. In the result, both the appeals as well as the applications therein stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)