1 ao1024 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1024 OF 2010 Thakkar Developers Limited ...Appellant vs. Sitaram Soma Dhanu ...Respondent Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr.Karan Thorat for the appellant Mr.Rajiv Narula a/w Basant Tilokani i/b Jhangiani, Narula & Associates for the respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.Dhaval Mehta i/b Mr.D.M.Legal Associates for respondent no.5 Mr.Vijay Singh Thorat, Sr.Counsel i/b Ms Sonali Pimple for respondent no.6 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant who is the original plaintiff. The suit is for specific performance of the alleged agreement for sale in respect of the suit property. According to the case of the appellant- plaintiff, the 5 th respondent (5 th defendant) represented to the appellant that he was holding a general power of attorney of 1 st to 4 th defendants and on the basis of the said representation, certain amount was paid by the appellant to the 5 th respondent under a receipt. The case of the appellant is that the said amount was accepted by the 5 th respondent on behalf of the 1 st to 4 th respondents. An application for temporary injunction made by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed by the impugned order. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though a stand of complete denial was taken by the 5 th respondent, the trial Court has accepted the case of the appellant that a sum of Rs.5,56,000/- was paid by the appellant to the 5 th respondent. He submitted that in 2 ao1024 view of the said finding, the application could not have been rejected and at least a limited protection ought to have been granted to the appellant. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. The suit is based on the alleged oral agreement for sale. Even according to the case of the appellant, negotiations were with the 5 th respondent. The existence of any agreement between the appellant and the 1st to 4th respondents who are claiming to be owners of the suit property has not been pleaded. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the 5 th respondent was authorised in any manner by the 1 st to 4 th respondents to deal with the suit property. Alleged power of attorney is not produced on record. In the circumstances, the trial Court has held that there is no prima facie case established by the appellant. There is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. As prima facie case is not made out, there is no question of granting limited interim relief. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 Civil application no.1308 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 5 All contentions of the parties on merits of the main suit are kept open. JUDGE