ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No.97 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 122 OF 2008. Shri Abdul sattar Chandsaab Bhagwan and Anr .. .. .. Appellants. Orig.Defendants. vs. Shri Shabir Nabisaab Durugkar .. Respondent. Orig.Plaintiff. Mr V.V.Purwant with Ms.S.R.Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J DATED :30TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocate for the appellants  original defendants. None present on behalf of the respondent  original plaintiff though served. Perused the appeal memo and material produced on record. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur on Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 173/2007. By the said impugned judgment and order the defendants were temporarily restrained from creating any third party interest with respect to the suit property till the decision of the suit. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 5.5.2005. The total consideration for sale of the house property was fixed at Rs.7 lacs and an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was received by the defendants and in fact at the time of payment of such earnest money possession of the premises was also given to the respondents- plaintiffs. However, subsequently forcible possession of the premises was taken back by the defendants and the defendants stated negotiating with the third party for sale of the said premises. As such the suit for specific performance of contract and injunction was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff and in the said suit order was passed on Exh.5 restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest with respect to the suit property. This order is being challenged in the present Appeal. 4. Apart from challenging the averments of the plaintiffs in the suit as to said alleged agreement to sale being forged and fabricated, there is nothing produced before the Court by the appellants to substantiate their defence. On the contrary, affidavits of the attesting witnesses to the said agreement for sale were filed by the appellants-defendants. Moreover, the order of injunction is not challenged by the original defendant No.2. Considering the apprehension in the mind of the respondent- plaintiff as to likelihood of creation of third party interest by the defendants the Trial Court allowed the application Exh.5 and passed the injunction order. 5. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants-defendants and considering the reasoning given by the Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, there is no legal necessity to interfere with the said order of injunction and the present Appeal from order must fail and same is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any operating in favour of the appellant shall be treated as vacated. 6. In view of dismissal of the A.O., Civil Application also shall stand dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI,J)