ash 1 51ao-387.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 387 OF 2011 M/s. Anjaneya Land & Property Developers. .. Appellants. Vs Smt. Shantabai Barku Mhatre. .. Respondent -- Shri Nitin P. Deshpande for the Appellant. Shri P.D. Dalvi for Respondent. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent states that the Respondent has no intention to challenge the impugned order. 2. A limited relief of injunction has been granted in favour of the Appellant restraining the Respondent-Defendant from creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property. However, the remaining part of the prayers in the Application at Exhibit – 5 has not been granted. 3. As the plaint stands today, there is no prayer for specific performance of the alleged agreement executed by the Respondent. There is no prayer for protecting the possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Prima facie, the learned Judge ash 2 51ao-387.11 could not have granted even a limited prayer for injunction in view of this deficiency. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant at this stage, on instructions, states that the Appellant has already filed an application for amendment of the plaint, inter alia, seeking permission to incorporate the relief for specific performance. He submits that considering the fact that there is no prayer for specific performance, the Appellant is not pressing the present Appeal at this stage. However, he prays that a liberty may be granted to take out a fresh application for interim relief, as and when amendment is allowed. 5. Hence, the Appeal is disposed of as not pressed. 6. If amendment to the plaint for incorporating the relief of specific performance is allowed, it will be open for the Appellant to take out a fresh application for appropriate interim relief. All contentions of the parties on merits of such application are expressly kept open and if such application is made, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 7. Civil Application No. 543 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )