1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 80 OF 2010 Sk. Nazim s/o Sk. Jeelani, Aged 44 years, Occupation Business, Resident of C/o. Snehnagar, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad Appellants V E R S U S 1. Ramesh s/o Achutrao Hattikar, Aged 48 years, Occupation Agriculture, 2. Matin Ahmad s/o Eqbal Ahmed, Aged 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, 3. A Salim s/o A Riyaz Deshmukh, Aged 63 years, Occupation Agriculture, 4. Nasrullakhan s/o Munirkhan Pathan, Aged 39 years, Occupation Agriculture, 5. Sk. Majid s/o Abdul Sattar, Aged 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, 6. Mohd. Anwar s/o Abdul Jabbar Deshmukh, Aged 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, 7. Yunuskha s/o Jumankha Pathan, Aged 30 years, Occupation Business, 8. Sk. Rafique s/o Sk. Ismail, Aged 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, 9. Arefkha s/o Sherkha Pathan, Aged 32 years, Occupation Labour, 10. Sk. Gulam Sk. Moinuddin Kureshi, Aged 30 years, Occupation Business, R/o Mominpura, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad, Respondents 2 11. Taherkha s/o Yashin Kha Pathan, Aged 50 years, Occupation Service, R/o Bharatnagar, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. 12. Ahemadabee w/o Rahemkha, Aged 50 years, Occupation Household, R/o Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. 13. Akil Ahemad Sultanmiya Deshmukh, Aged 43 years, Occupation Business, R/o Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. 14. Riyazshah Shabbir Shah, Aged 39 years, Occupation Business, All R/o Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for the appellants Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 14 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The original plaintiff has filed this appeal against the interim order, which refused his prayer for temporary injunction. The case of the appellant / plaintiff, in short, is as under: 2. The appellant / plaintiff said, he agreed to purchase 45 plots from land Survey No. 94/1 of Sillod from one Ramesh, the respondent No.1, in the year 2001, and he essentially filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The background facts are as under : 3. Ramesh and respondents No. 2 to 5 admittedly purchased agricultural land ad-measuring 3 acres 34 gunthas out of land Survey No.94/1. They admittedly purchased this property for converting it in 3 non-agricultural use. They wanted to develop township on the property. They admittedly prepared a map showing 128 plots laid over this plot of land. But, they could not secure permission to convert the user of the land into non-agriculture and could not get layout of the land sanctioned. Admittedly, in 1997, the respondents No.1 and 5 were appointed as attorneys of the owners and they were even given power to sale out the plots. The present appellant / plaintiff contended that utilizing such power, the respondent No.1 agreed to sell the suit plots to him. He also said that he was put in possession of the suit plots. The respondents No. 1 to 3 admitted the claim of appellant / plaintiff, whereas the respondents No. 4 and 5 denied having party to such arrangement. It is their case that though there was an arrangement recorded through the registered power of attorney appointing the respondents No. 1 and 5, the respondents No. 1 and 5 did not alienate the suit plots till recently, and so, there was a special civil suit filed for partition of not only the suit plots of this case but other plots also. They stated that in that case the respondent No. 1, the so-called vendor of the appellant, did not disclose that he had agreed to sell the suit plots way back in 2001 to the appellant. It is also indicated that the respondent No.5 has alienated number of plots including the suit plots to various parties including the respondents No. 6 to 14. According to the case of respondents No. 6 to 14, they had purchased the suit plots long back and they are in possession. 4. Prima facie, the case of the plaintiff as regards the agreement for sale appears quite believable, but it is quite doubtful whether the appellant has physical control over the suit plots. It is equally uncertain that the respondents No. 6 to 14 have physical control over the suit plots. At the trial stage, the Court would be in a better position to examine as to whether the suit transaction of 2001 had really taken place? But, till then, the parties should be directed to maintain the present statusquo of the suit plots. Since it is difficult to record 4 definite finding as to who is in possession of the suit plots, it would be sufficient and in the interest of justice to direct all the parties to the suit to refrain from dealing with the suit plots, further alienating the suit plots and creating any further encumbrance including construction, development etc on the suit plots. Hence, order : a. Appeal is partly allowed. b. The parties to the suit shall not deal with, alienate, develop or erect construction on the suit plots till disposal of the suit. c. The hearing of the suit is expedited. In view of disposal of Appeal From Order, Civil Applications Nos.6578 of 2010 and 8256 of 2010 does not survive. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/AO/80/10