1 ao1296-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FOR ORDER NO. 1296 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15588 OF 2008 Dawood S. Karu & Anr. .. Appellants v/s. Jamnadas J. Jariwala & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. N. G. Chhatre for the Appellants. Mr. Rajiv Pandey i/b. M/s. P.R.S. Legal for Respondent No.1. Ms. Hina Mody for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : JULY 20, 2010. P.C. The appellants herein is aggrieved by the interim order dated 18th October, 2008 passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, refusing injunction, even after appellant established that he had parted with a sum of Rs. 48,00,000/- in pursuance of a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MOU for short). 2 ao1296-08 2. The appellants had prayed for an injunction pending hearing and disposal of the suit to restrain defendant nos. 1 and 2 from dealing with, disposing off, conveying and/or assigning the suit property, as also restraining the defendants from parting with records in respect of the suit property since the property was mortgaged with defendant no.2 State Bank of India. No fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Judge, since she has carefully considered all aspects of the matter and even the learned counsel for the appellants has candidly admitted that the MOU is not very happily worded. In this background, the interest of the appellants can be protected by the appellants having their lis registered, so that the appellants will not face the consequences of transfers in view of provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants states that till the appellants get their lis registered, some protection should be given to the appellants. The appellants was without protection from 18th October, 2008. There is no question of affording any protection to 3 ao1296-08 the appellants now. The learned counsel for the appellants states that his learned adversary had stated that respondent no.1 would not deal with the property till the disposal of the suit. There is no noting of such type on the record. Therefore, nothing can now be done. The Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. 4. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 1588 of 2008 does not survive, and is disposed of accordingly. [ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]