1 ao491-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.491 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 636 OF 2010 Gangaram Murlidhar Shinde .. Appellant v/s. Vithal Narhari Aher .. Respondents .... Mr. S. M. Sabrad for the Applicant. None for Respondent. .... CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : JULY 20, 2010. P.C. This Appeal is directed against the order directed against the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2009 whereby the learned Judge rejected the appellant’s application for an injunction to restrain the respondents from creating any third party interest or charges on the property. It was the appellant’s case that on 30th July, 2009, the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 13,22,400/- and received only Rs.11,000/- towards the earnest money. The plaintiff was always 2 ao491-10 ready to pay the entire balance amount and was also ready to deposit it in the Court. Since the defendants refused to proceed with the transaction, the plaintiff filed the suit and therein claimed an injunction for restraining the defendants from entering into any transaction in respect of the suit property creating third party interest or charges on the property. This injunction was refused by the learned trial Judge, principally holding that from a consideration of Rs. 13,22,400/- only a sum of Rs.11,000/-, which was a small amount. was paid. In any case, all the plaintiffs are duly protected under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore such an injunction would be redundant. The defendants would undoubtedly be obliged to inform the prospective purchaser to whom they intend to transfer the property or create any charge thereon, that such charge would be subject to the result of the litigation which is pending. In any case, even the plaintiff can have his lis registrered so that the prospective purchaser of the property would have a notice that the transaction that they may have entered into would be subject matter of the suit. 2. In view of the same, the Appeal is disposed of. 3 ao491-10 3. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application No. 636 of 2010, does not survive, and, is disposed of accordingly. [ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]