1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.682 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.793 OF 2008 Shri. Vijay Tukaram Raundal. ..Appellant. Vs. Ramu Laxman Padale and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.J.Raikar i/by N.C .Walimbe for the Appellant. Mr. Hemant Gahadigaonklar for the Respondents 2 to 8. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 30/9/2009 PC : 1 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the refusal of interim relief in his suit for specific performance. The plaintiff has sought the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 5.1.1098. The trial court has observed that since grant of possession is mentioned in the agreement, the agreement is not properly stamped. Apart from this, it is clear from the agreement that the sale deed was to be executed within a period of 12 months. The agreement is admittedly not signed by all the co owners. There is 2 no mention in the agreement that the transaction is for legal necessity. It is also not disputed that the agreement was cancelled on 5.1.1999 after expiry of the period of 12 months. The suit was filed about seven years thereafter on 11.9.2006. Prima facie, the aforesaid facts indicate that the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation. The 7/12 extracts from the year 1998 to 2006 also indicate that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. In this view of the matter, not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is therefore, rejected. 2. It is made clear that the observations are made prima facie and that the suit will be decided on its own merits. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.793 OF 2008 2 As the main appeal is decided on merits, civil application does not survive and therefore, the same is disposed off. ( R.S.MOHITE, J. ) 3