:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4106 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.3500 OF 2005 Neeta Tikam Nariani and anr. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Sudhir V.Sonecha and ors. ..Defendant. Mr,.J.G.Shukla i/by M/s. G.M.Shukla & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mrs.Divya Trivedi for the Defendant No.1. Mr.R.G.Lad, AGP. for the Defendant No.3. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 17/4/2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the original plaintiffs for injunction in respect of the suit flat. The plaintiffs’ suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2.7.2005. This court has already granted a limited injunction on 23.12.2005 in terms of prayer clause (b) except bracketed portion. The order indicates that the defendants were given liberty to apply for vacation of the injunction after giving 72 hours notice in writing to the plaintiffs’ advocate. That procedure is not followed. Perusal of the record indicates that prior to the filing of the suit and within a reasonable period after the execution of the agreement of sale dated 2.7.2005, the plaintiff had addressed a letter to the defendant no.1 to furnish certain documents such as NOC from Mhada which would required for disbursement of :2: the loan by ICICI Bank. The record indicates that instead of co-operating with the purchasers, the vendor by referring to certain conditions which are not found in the agreement, purported to forfeit the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- which was paid to the defendant No.1 by way of earnest money. The reply filed by the C.A. of the defendant No.1 to this notice of motion also indicates that the Defendant No..1 has accepted the execution of the agreement. In fact, she has stated that she is willing to complete the transaction in case the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- is paid with reasonable interest. In his view of the matter,I am of the view that there is a prima facie case established by the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs in continuing the ad interim injunction earlier granted by this court on 23.12.2005. Notice of motion is therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), except bracketed portion, and stands disposed off accordingly. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)