1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 243 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2011 Mahendra D. Gawade ...Appellant/Applicant Versus Anant V. Jadhav ...Respondent Mr.S.S.Redekar for the Appellant/Applicant Mr.S.I.Kazi with Mr.V.M.Parkar for the Respondent CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 16th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicant by this application seeks injunction against the respondent from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property and also from disturbing the applicant’s possession. The applicant was the plaintiff in the lower court. He had filed suit for specific performance based on the written agreement. In this agreement there is clear mention that pursuant to the agreement, certain amount was paid to the respondent vendor and possession 2 was also delivered to the applicant. The applicant sought specific performance of the agreement. The respondent vendor did not file written statement, but unfortunately the suit was dismissed on the ground that the applicant plaintiff could not prove his readiness and willingness etc. The learned Judge of the lower court held that the agreement was proved. 2. The applicant now says that since the suit was dismissed, the respondent is taking steps for creating third party rights in respect of the suit land and is also likely to disturb his possession. The respondent filed the reply to the application and admitted that he had already agreed to sell the property to third party. He further mentioned that he did not execute any agreement for sale and that he had not put the applicant in possession etc. These averments are made for the first time in this appeal and therefore they cannot be believed. The respondent also placed reliance on certain order passed on the applicant’s application seeking mutation etc. However, such order does not effect the case of the applicant because apparently the applicant has proved not only the agreement, but his averment in the plaint and evidence that he was put in possession has also gone unchallenged. 3 3. In view of this, applicant has prima facie proved and he is in possession of the suit land. Therefore, there should be order in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 4. Application stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)