1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.141 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2009 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.142 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.205 OF 2009 Mr. Pandharinath Balya @ Bala Ghoparkar & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Mrs. Hemlata Anil Parmar and Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani i/by Yogesh Deshpande, advs. For the Appellants. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar, adv. For the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Appellants, who are the original defendant nos.1 to 4 were entitled to allotment of certain land of CIDCO under the scheme known as 12.5% scheme and the plaintiff/respondent no.1 entered into an agreement to purchase a part of land, which was yet to be allotted. Part of the amount of consideration was paid by the plaintiff and balance amount of consideration was to be paid as and when land would be allotted by CIDCO. The land has been allotted by the CIDCO after the 2 said agreement. However, the defendants refused to execute the assignment in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the contract, therefore, he filed the suit for the specific performance of the contract. Defendants contends that the terms of the contract were not explained to them and they did not understand complications of the same though they admit signatures on the contract as well as receipt of part of the consideration amount shown in the agreement. On the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction pending the suit, the trial Court directed defendant nos.1 to 4 not to create any third party interest in the suit land and also directed defendant no.5 CIDCO not to transfer or assign suit land in favour of any third person except the plaintiff. That order is challenged in the present appeal by the original defendant nos.1 to 4. 3 It appears that issues have been framed and even affidavits in examination-in-chief have been filed by the plaintiff. Suit is at the stage of recording the cross-examination of the witnesses. The impugned order protects interests of both the parties and further complications are tried to be avoided by restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest pending the suit. In the given circumstances, no other order could have been passed by any Court. I do not see any reason to interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court in passing the impugned 3 order. 4 Therefore, the appeals stand dismissed. As the appeals are dismissed, civil applications do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)