: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.126 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Avinash B. Avhad for the Appellant. Mr.V.D. Raut for Respondent Nos.9 to 11. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. The learned Judge has come to a prima-facie finding in favour of the Appellant on merits. There is nothing on record which indicates that there is any infirmity in the same. 3. However, the application for injunction has been refused inter-alia on : 2 : the ground that the Appellant’s rights are safe-guarded by the doctrine of lis-pendence. This is not an adequate reason to refuse an injunction in a suit for specific performance where the agreement is established and there is nothing else which indicates that the injunction ought not to be granted. 4. Mr.Raut, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.9 to 11 states that the land has now been acquired by the M.I.D.C. He therefore, states that there is no question of the Respondents creating any third party rights. In that event also, grant of injunction would not affect the Respondents if in fact the property has vested in the Government. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside and the following order is passed :- (a). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the : 3 : Respondents shall not alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights in, to, upon or in respect of the suit property. This ofcourse is on the basis that they have any subsisting rights. If they do not and if the property has in fact been acquired as alleged this order would naturally not affect such authorities.