1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1457 OF 2009 Roshan Naresh Wagde ..vrs.. Amol Komawar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 20 th APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri G.N. Khanzode, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 6th District Judge, Nagpur on 29.05.2008 allowing an application filed by the respondent for grant of injunction. By the impugned order dated 29.05.2008, the petitioner was restrained from alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property, during the pendency and final disposal of the suit. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the 2 impugned order dated 29.05.2008. The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff/respondent had made out a strong prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The Appellate Court, found that the plaintiff had already paid earnest amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the plaintiff, and hence the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. The Court found that the plaintiff would also suffer grave and irreparable loss in case the property was disposed of by the defendant, as he would be deprived of his right to get the decree for specific performance of contract. The Court found that it was necessary to grant temporary injunction in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court also found that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to inform the plaintiff/respondent that there was encumbrance on the suit property and also to remove the encumbrance, if any, and the petitioner had failed to do so. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the finding is incorrect, as a notice was issued by the plaintiff in the newspaper calling for objections and the same was not replied by any body, is liable 3 to be rejected at this stage. There is no error whatsoever in the order passed by th Appellate Court on 29.05.2008, much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same. The petition is devoid of any merit and is therefore dismissed, with no order as to cost. The trial Court is however directed to decide the suit as early as possible. JUDGE Rgd