1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Appeal against Order No. 33 of 2008 [H.B. Sugandh & ors. Vs. Dr. Chaudhary Vidhutprabha & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.R. Srivastava, Advocate for appellants. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th April,2008. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, in whose favour an order of status quo was in operation from 31st December, 2005, however, application for injunction has been rejected and hence they are before this Court. 3. Admittedly, the transaction is dated 2nd January, 2003. 4. According to the appellants, the defendants tried to sell out the suit property and hence they filed a suit for injunction on 10th March, 2003, which was rejected due to non- payment of court fees, and suit for specific 2 performance, on 7th December, 2005 almost when the limitation was coming to an end. 5. Considering the manner in which the litigation was pursued by the appellants, their interest in the cause comes under cloud. Had they been keen on getting the specific performance, they would have punctually filed a suit for specific performance, instead of whiling away time in a suit for injunction. No explanation is offered as to why this course has been adopted. 6. In this situation, all that reveals is that the appellants were neither keen on or serious in getting specific performance. Just because an Agreement of Sale exists and they have a lis to pursue, does not essentially mean and follow that they would be entitled to keep the vendor under the hanging sword of litigation, particularly when the defence in the present suit is that the transaction is not out and out sale, but by way of security for loan etc. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellants urged that the defence in earlier suit and present suit is varying, which should not matter seriously. What is to be seen is equity in favour of a person seeking specific performance. It is not a rule that in every suit for specific performance, there should be embargo on 3 alienation of suit property. 8. In this situation, no interference is called for. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau|