1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 16 OF 2008 (Rajendra Vishambhar Thorat vs. Suresh Gulabrao Choudhari & Ors.) 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. AUGUST 14, 2008. Heard Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant/ original plaintiff, Shri Deshpande, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 and Shri Zoting, Advocate for respondent No.3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 seeks time to file an affidavit along with some documents. The request is rejected. After hearing parties, it is noticed that the sale deed in favour of Respondent No.3 has been executed on 08.07.2006 while the present suit for specific performance in relation to the very same property has been filed by the present appellant on 07.04.2008. From the allegations in the plaint as also in appeal, it appears that the property is already in possession of Respondent No.3, who has undertaken the construction of Masjid upon it. Respondent No.3 fairly states that there is no 2 question of creating any third party interest in the Masjid in near future. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel states that as they have already parted with the property in favour of Respondent No.3, there is no question of Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 creating any third party interest in it. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant states that the Masjid being constructed on suit property can be relied upon to claim some right in equity or some legal right or even to point out public interest in the property. However, as prima facie it appears that the construction is still going on and has been undertaken during the pendency of suit, it is apparent that no such right either in law or in equity can be claimed by Respondent No.3. The removal of construction can be taken into account by the trial Court while passing final orders and it will not in any way prejudice any legal right or other right of the appellant – plaintiff. Thus, the respondents shall not create any third party interest during the pendency of SCS No. 359 of 2007. The proceedings in said suit are expedited. The Court shall expedite the said SCS as early as possible and in any case within a period of 3 one year from the date of communication of this order to it. In view of this, nothing survives in the present A.O. It is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE *GS.