1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 542 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2008 Sanjeev Bhika Bhandarkar & ors. ... Appellants v/s Gopinath Khanderao Vidhate & anr. ... Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani for the appellants. Mr.P.M.Jadhav for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellants have challenged the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Nashik, on 10.1.2008 rejecting the application at Exh.5 filed by the appellants for a temporary injunction. The appellants have filed a suit before the Trial Court contending that they had executed an agreement with defendant No.2 under which the latter agreed to sell to them a plot of land for a consideration of Rs.4,63,397/-. The appellants contended that Rs.3,51,000/- 2 has been paid by them to defendant No.1. The appellants contended that defendant No.1 was to obtain a clear title, necessary permissions and sanctions for the lay out, after which the conveyance was to be executed. The agreement of sale is dated 12.2.1997. The sanction for the lay out was obtained on 6.7.1999. The permission for using the plot for non-agricultural purposes was obtained on 30.7.2003. According to the appellants, defendant No.1 refused to convey the property to them and, therefore, they filed the present suit in 2007. 2. It appears that defendant No.1 has sold the property on 24.3.2004 to defendant No.2. Despite this, the present suit has been filed in the year 2007. The Trial Court has therefore refused to grant interim relief in favour of the appellants. 3. In my view, no error has been committed by the Trial Court since the appellants have yet to establish that they have paid certain amounts towards the consideration. Besides this, the appellants have not been vigilant in exercising their rights, if any, immediately after permission was obtained by defendant No.1 for the lay out as well as for using the land for non-agricultural purposes. 3 4. The appeal from order is therefore dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 4