1 77 ao.587.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 587 OF 2010 Ashish Prashant Hendre and others. ... Appellants Vs. Vasant Narayan Jadhav and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr.P.G.Karande for the Appellants. Mr. S.B.Shetty for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24 th February, 2011. P.C. 1 The Appellants who are the original plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and order dated 28 th April, 2010 passed by the learned trial Court by which the application for temporary injunction made by the Appellants has been rejected. The suit is filed for declaration that the Appellants are the owners and in possession of the suit property comprising of House Nos.102 and 103 more particularly described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. 2 77 ao.587.10 2 It is not in dispute that in execution, the Civil Court has ordered the sale of the land below the two houses in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The sale certificate has been already issued by the Civil Court in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that there is no reference in the sale certificate to the sale of the houses on the lands and therefore, houses have not been sold. He placed reliance on two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in support of the contentions that right, title and interest in respect of the suit houses has not been transfered to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are the auction purchasers. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the lands below both the suit houses have been sold in execution to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the sale certificate has been granted. In the suit, apart from the prayer for declaration of ownership and possession, another prayer is for restoration of House No.102, which 3 77 ao.587.10 was allegedly demolished by the Respondents. In the suit, there is no challenge to the sale of the land below both the houses in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. As of today, the sale has attained finality. 5 In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned trial Court has declined to grant equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction. It is not possible to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 6 It is made clear that the observations made by this Court as well as the trial Court in the impugned order are tentative and prima-facie observations and the suit will be decided without being influenced by the said observations. 7 Civil Application No.762 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. 4 77 ao.587.10 8 On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, the order of status-quo passed on 28 th June, 2010 shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. [ A.S.OKA, J ]