KBP 3408-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3408 OF 2009 Avikumar Dhondiram Dhule and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Ramchandra Dattatray Vaidya and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Pradip Shingade h/f.Mr.Tejesh Dande, for petitioners. Mr.Sagar Joshi, for respondent Nos.1a to 1c, 2 to 4 and 6. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who are the original plaintiffs. The petition is taken up for admission as an amicable settlement between the parties is not possible. 2] The petitioners have come to the Court with the case that the predecessors of the respondent nos.1 to 6 have agreed to sell the suit property in their favour. Allegation in the plaint is that the petitioners have paid substantial amount to the respondent nos.1 to 6. A part of the property subject matter of the agreement has been acquired by seventh respondent Municipal Council. The substantive prayer in the suit is that till the accounts are not settled between the parties, the seventh respondent Municipal Council should be restrained from paying compensation on account of acquisition of the part of property to the respondent no.1 to 6. An application for temporary injunction was filed in the suit claiming injunction restraining first to sixth respondent from receiving compensation amount from the seventh respondent and for restraining seventh respondent from paying KBP 3408-09.sxw 2 compensation amount. The relief of temporary injunction has been denied to the Petitioners by the Courts below . 3] After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Courts below. The petitioners are claiming rights on the basis of agreement of sale. The Petitioners have neither sued for specific performance nor for damages. Though it was possible for the petitioners to claim more efficacious relief, they have not done so, and therefore, in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the courts below were justified in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. 4] Writ Petition is rejected. However, all the contentions of the parties in the pending suit are expressly kept open. ( A.S.OKA, J. )