1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.283 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.283 OF 2009 Mrs. Gayatridevi Ganpatrao Patwardhan .... Appellant Vs. Vijaykumar Bhagawant Dhamdhere & Anr. .... Respondents Shri Tejesh Dande for the Appellant. Shri Hemant Ghadigaonkar for the Respondents. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 06, 2010 P.C: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Pune rejecting the appellant's application for injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest. The appellant has entered into an agreement by earnest note. The appellant is thus a prospective purchaser. All that he claims is that third party interest should not be created till the suit is disposed 2 of. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act takes care of the apprehension of the appellant. The appellant could also have the lis registered, so that all the transactions which take place during the pendency of the suit would be subject to the decision of the suit and the purchasers from the defendants would not be able to set up any defence to the execution of such decree as may be eventually passed in the suit. In view of this, the learned trial Judge rightly refused injunction. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that if injunction is refused the suit would become infructuous. It is not clear how prayer for specific relief would become infructuous if injunction is not granted. Learned counsel states that such refusal would create multiplicity of proceedings. That would not be so because the Supreme Court has already ruled that purchasers during the pendency of the lis, without obtaining the leave of the Court, are not entitled to be joined as parties in the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the parties state that the trial Court may asked to expedite the hearing of the suit. Since the 3 suit is of the year 2007, the learned Judge would take up the matter for hearing as early as possible. Both the counsel agree that they would not apply for adjournments and their clients would co-operate to ensure disposal of the suit before 31-12-2010. The appeal stands disposed of. 4. In view of disposal of the appeal, the civil application also stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)