1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1096 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.42 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3606 OF 2006 M/s.Rainbow Prints Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant V/s M/s.Dharamchand Polyfab Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.D.D.Madan, Sr.Advocate i/by M/s.Yasmin Bhansali & Co.for the Appellant. Mr.Tushar Cooper with Ms.Najma Shaikh & Mrs.Kanchan Gupta i/by M/s.Vigil Juris for Respondent No.2. Mr.M.S.Doctor i/by Mr.Ramchandra Yadav for Respondent Nos.3 to 10. Mr.Harinder Toor i/by Mr.O.D.Goswami for Respondent No.11. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 7th June, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides. In the suit, the Appellant/ plaintiff is seeking decree of specific performance of an oral agreement to sell shares of the private limited company. In our opinion, considering that a decree of specific performance of an oral agreement is sought, in the facts and circumstances of the case no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant/plaintiff has not made out a 2 prima-facie case. 2. In our opinion, if the appellant/plaintiff ultimately succeeds in proving that he is entitled to a decree of specific performance, even if the shares are transferred during the pendency of the suit, that transfer would be subject to the result of the suit and the appellant/plaintiff can always take appropriate steps to challenge such transfer in civil suit. 3. So far as case of the appellant/plaintiff that it was intending to bye shares of the company so that it becomes owner of the land, has rightly not been believed by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, there is no room to interfere with the impugned order. No interference is called for. Appeal is rejected. 4. In view of disposal of appeal, Notice of Motion No.3291 of 2010 stands disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)