IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2006 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2006 .................................................................. Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders. orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. .................................................................. Shri J.S.Kini for the Applicants. Shri Milind Deshmukh for the Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 06, 2007. : JULY 06, 2007. : JULY 06, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicants and Advocate for the first Respondent. The learned Advocate for the first Respondent states that there was no injunction granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application by the trial Court. The learned Advocate for the Applicants is unable to dispute the correctness of the said statement. In view of this factual position, no case is made out for grant of temporary injunction. It is, however, obvious that all further transaction, if any, in respect of the suit property will be subject to final outcome of the Appeal. Subject to what is stated above, Civil Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE