1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2007 M/S. ADVANCE HOME MAKERS GROUP ... APPELLANT (Plaintiff) VERSUS DNYANESHWAR SHAMA BHOIR & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.R.Arjunwadkar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jeetendra Sachdev, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admittedly, the land of the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was acquired for the purpose of CIDCO and as per the 12.5% Scheme for the settlement of the cultivators whose land was acquired, 2 CIDCO had allotted plot No.18 admeasuring 550 sq. mtrs. in Sector 13. On 21.2.2004, an agreement for sale had taken place between the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 on the one hand and defendant No.7 on the other. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.7, on the basis of that agreement, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 3.4.2004 and agreed to sell the property to him and having received the earnest money of Rs.1 lakh also executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of that agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.7, the plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.187 of 2005 for specific performance and for perpetual injunction. By application Exhibit 5, he sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in the property. The application was contested by the defendants Nos. 1 to 6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 3.11.2006 and rejected the application on the ground that as long as the defendant No.7 himself had not purchased the property on the basis of the agreement dated 21.2.2004, he could not enter into any contract or agreement to transfer that property to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal. 3 3. From the pleadings of the plaintiff himself and the documents relied upon by him, it is clear that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 who are owners of the land. The defendant Nos. 1 to 6 would be bound by the agreement dated 21.2.2004 between themselves and the defendant No.7, but admittedly, on the basis of that agreement, the defendant No.7 has not got the sale deed executed and as long as the defendant No.7 does not become owner of the property, he is not in a position to sell the property to any other person including the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not file the suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 on the basis of his agreement with defendant No.7 because there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6. I find no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4 5. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the Appeal. The trial Court while deciding the suit shall not be influenced by the observations. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)