1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3150 OF 2010 Abhiman w/o Sarjerao Nikat .. PETITIONER VERSUS Pandit Damodar Kopner & others .. RRESPONDENTS Mr. S.C. Havelikar, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner / original defendant no. 3 is raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below in respect of grant of injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 / original plaintiff. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming specific performance of contract being Regular Civil Suit no. 232/2006 against the defendants. Plaintiff contends that by virtue of an agreement to sell dt. 10-2-2004, he has agreed to 2 purchase the property for valuable consideration and he is put in possession in pursuance to the agreement by defendant no.1. Defendant in pursuance to the suit summons caused his appearance in the matter on 9-7-2007. It transpires that defendant no. 1 inspite of having knowledge of the suit instituted by plaintiff claiming specific performance of agreement, transferred the property by executing sale-deed in favour of defendant no. 3 on 23-7-2007. Defendant no. 3 thereafter presented an application for his impleadment in the suit which was allowed and defendant no. 3 is impleaded as party to the suit. Plaintiff, apprehending his dispossession at the hands of defendants, presented application exh. 5 seeking injunction against the defendants which was considered by the trial court and an order of injunction has been clamped against the defendants. The order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff has been confirmed by the first appellate court while dealing with Misc. Civil Appeal no. 26/2009. The concurrent orders passed by the courts below in respect of grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff are subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 I have perused both the orders passed by the courts below. Defendant no. 3 who has presented the instant petition has purchased the 3 property in spite of knowledge of pending litigation. I am of the opinion that the concurrent orders passed by the courts below need not be interfered with in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb/wp3150.10.odt