1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDR NO.15 OF 2009. Gopal Hiralalji Patel ..vs .. Smt.Veena w/o w/o Vijay Dongre and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.N.Mahajan,Adv. For the appellant. Mr.A.N.Ansari Adv. h/f for Mr.H.D.Dangre Adv. for the resp.nos.1 and 2. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 14th January, 2010. 1. This appeal is directed against the interim order dated dated 25th of September, 2008 by which the appellant’s application for interim relief in a suit for Specific Performance was rejected. 2. The appellant claims that by the agreement dated 8th April, 2004, respondent nos.1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property consisting of House No.497 situate at City Survey No.2979, admeasuring 185.40 sq. mtrs. situate at Sitabuldi, Nagpur for total consideration of Rs.10,01,000/-. The appellant claims 2 to have paid sum of Rs.31,000/- in cash on 25th February, 2004 and further claims that on the date of the agreement of sale, he made payments of Rs.85,000/- and Rs.50,000/- by cheques to the two respondents, which cheques have been encashed. Thereafter, on 21st April 2007 he filed the instant suit for specific performance with an allegation that the respondents are trying to create third party rights over the suit property and sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from doing so. There is no dispute that there are more co-owners of the suit property i.e. the sisters of respondent no.2 They were not impleaded in the suit as filed originally. Subsequently they have been joined as parties to the suit. The respondents have, by the agreement of lease dated 5th October, 2006, granted lease of the suit property for a period of 99 years for the lump-sum consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- to one Vivek Tulsiram Trivedi of Ganraj Hotel and has handed over possession of the suit property to him. 3. The respondents contest the suit totally denying the agreement of sale with the appellant. They also deny having received any amount from him. It is alleged by the respondents that bearer cheques allegedly issued by the appellant to the respondents do not bear the signatures of these respondents on its 3 reverse side. According to these respondents, the signatures appearing there are of some body else. Considering these facts of the matter, the appellant will have to establish his case by leading the appropriate evidence at the time of final hearing of the suit. It may also be noted here that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. In the circumstances, there is no error in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed. JUDGE. chute