AO.399-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 399 OF 2010 M/s. Ureka Builders .. Appellant Vs. Yakub Mainuddin Warekar & Ors. ..Respondents AND APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 400 OF 2010 M/s. Ureka Builders .. Appellant Vs. Bakir Abdul Kadir Varerkar & Ors. ..Respondents *** Mr. J. Reis i/b K. H. Holambe-Patil, for the Appellant. Mr. A. A. Kumbhkoni, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Gauri Godse, for Respondent No.1. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. K. S. Dewal for Respondent No.27 in AO No. 399/2010 and for Respondent No.21 in AO No. 400/2010. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. These two appeals are directed against the orders passed by AO.399-10 - 2 - the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Thane below application (Exh.5) in Special Civil Suit No. 848 of 2009 and 849 of 2009. The first grievance of the appellants is that the learned trial Judge virtually photo copied the order passed in one suit in other suit and signed it and this has led to inaccuracy in narrating the facts like – there were 7 agreements in Special Civil Suit No. 848 of 2009 whereas there is only one agreement in Special Civil Suit No. 849 of 2009. There was some correspondence and refund of Rs.15 lacs in Special Civil Suit No. 849 of 2009 whereas there was no such correspondence in Special Civil Suit No. 848 of 2009. In spite of these inaccuracies and though the learned Judge ought to have ideally passed separate orders in the two suits, the orders have been scrutinized by examining the merits of the matter. 2. The appellants, who are plaintiffs in the suits, had entered into agreements of lease or memorandum of understanding in respect of Survey No. 44/2, 47 and 48/2 which were in possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 6. On the basis of these agreements, the plaintiffs claimed to have paid a sum of Rs. 10,30,000/- towards purchase of land Gat Nos. 44/2, 47/2 in Special Civil Suit No. 848 of 2009, and paid a sum of Rs. 12.43 lacs in respect of land Survey Nos. 48/2 in Special Civil Suit AO.399-10 - 3 - No. 849 of 2009. These amounts were paid during the period spread over from 1995 to 2001-2002. In the year 2009, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 executed registered conveyances in favour of rest of the defendants in the two suits. In respect of transactions for purchase land survey Nos. 44/2, 47/2 the plaintiffs had earlier filed a Special Civil Suit in the year 2007 which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, after curing the defect on account of non registration of the plaintiff partnership firm. The plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 848 of 2009 after curing that defect. 3. The learned trial Judge rightly held in paragraph 27 of his impugned order that the appellants adopted wait and watch policy. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had in fact been paying the defendants from time to time. This is not inconsistent with the wait and watch observation made by the learned trial Judge. The plaintiffs had simply kept the vendors engaged by go on paying them tits and bits of the consideration which they claim to have settled upon long ago. The learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance had not gone but that does not mean that the appellants would be entitled AO.399-10 - 4 - to an equitable relief of an injunction in their suit for specific performance, filed almost 14 years after the alleged transactions were entered into. Therefore, the learned Judge was not wrong in refusing the relief to restrain the defendants from alienating the property or creating third party interest and/or raising construction over the property. The plaintiffs cannot show that they would suffer irreparable loss, if an injunction is refused, since Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act takes care of their apprehensions. In view of this, impugned orders do not call for interference. Appeals are therefore dismissed. The learned Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible, and the parties to both the suits shall cooperate with him. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]