1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1489/2008 (Madhavrao Aanyaji Bagde Vs. Chandrakant Shankarrao Deshmukh & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 15 th APRIL, 2008. Heard Shri Joharapurkar for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below exh. 46, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner restraining the respondent no.1 from creating any third party interest in the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit property in pursuance of the registered sale deed dated 29/1/2003. The plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff during the pendency of the civil suit. Said application was, however, dismissed and the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2 Nagpur, on the said application for temporary injunction has attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the present application to restrain the respondent no.1 from creating third party interest in the suit property as the petitioner learnt from a public notice dated 8/2/2006, that the respondent no.1 had entered into an agreement of sale with one Shri Rambhau Chinchmalatpure. The respondents had denied the aforesaid fact and the counsel for the respondent no.1 had made a categorical statement before the trial Court that the respondent no.1 had neither entered into agreement for sale with Shri Rambhau Chinchmalatpure, nor the respondent no.1 was desirous of selling the suit property. The trial Court, however, by an order dated 18/7/2006, rejected the application which was challenged in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 323/2006. The appellate Court maintained the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on 18/7/2006. This petition impugns both the orders passed by the trial as well as the appellate Courts. I have perused the application Exh. 46, the reply filed by the respondent no.1 thereto at Exh. 49 and the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, and the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Nagpur. The application filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, as, according to the trial Court, the petitioner had failed to make out a strong prima facie case. The respondent no.1 had clearly refuted the fact about the intention of 3 the respondent no.1 to dispose of the property to Rambhau Chinchmalatpure or for that matter, to anybody else. A categorical statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in that regard. The Courts were further justified in considering the fact that the application for grant of temporary injunction as filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioner. The impugned orders cannot be said to be just and proper. In any case, the respondent no.1 denied that he intended to sell the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit. In this view of the matter, there was no reason whatsoever to grant the prayer made in the civil application filed by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP