1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal Against Order No.13 of 2007 1. Mitesh s/o Gotulal Bhangadiya, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Business. 2. Kiritkumar s/o Mitesh Bhangadiya, Aged about 24 years, Occupation Business. Both R/o Shriman Complex, Wardha Road, Nagpur. ... Appellants/ Ori. Defts.3 and 4 Versus 1. Binodkumar s/o Sitaram Chhawchhariya, Aged about 46 years, Occupation Business, R/o Volga Complex, Hem Barua Road, Guvahati (Assam), through Shri Bhushan s/o Late Mangilal Jain, General Power of Attorney Holder, R/o Nagpur. ... Org. Plaintiff 2. Umedmal s/o Neerajmal Kothari, Aged about 60 years, Occupation Business. ... Org. Deft. 1. 3. Smt. Chandralekha w/o Pawankumar Kothari, Aged about 45 years, Occupation Household. 2 Both R/o Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... Deft. 2 ... Respondents Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for Appellants. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATED : 20th April, 2009 Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit 18 in Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2006 before him. 2. The appellants are original defendants No.3 and 4, who have purchased the property on 4-7-2006 after the suit was filed on 4-1-2006 against original defendants No.1 and 2, who had entered into an agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.25 lacs on 19-7-2004. After the present appellants purchased the property they were joined defendants No. 3 and 4 in the suit and an application for injunction was 3 filed. The learned Trial Judge allowed this application by his impugned order, whereby he restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property, creating any third-party interest and changing the nature of the suit property till the decision of the suit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The respondents, though served, have not cared to appear or contest the appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have purchased the property for a valuable consideration of Rs.85 lacs and have also spent another sum of Rs.20 lacs in getting the sale-deed executed. They had no notice of the suit though the suit was instituted on 4-1-2006. The plaintiff had failed to pay process fee till 12-4-2006. On 12-5-2006, the appellant-purchasers issued a public notice indicating their intention to purchase the property and invite objections. No objections were received and the 4 appellants’ counsel also gave a clean title report. After the sale-deed was executed on 4-7-2006, on 10-7-2006, the plaintiff issued an advertisement about pendency of the suit and this is how the appellants came to know of the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since his clients have purchased the property for a valuable consideration without notice of the plaintiff’s right, the learned Trial Judge could not have issued a blanket injunction depriving the appellants of the use of the property after they had parted with a large sum of money without asking the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration out of the sum ofScreenshot Rs.25 lacs for which the plaintiff was to purchase the property. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling Col. Ltd. and others v. Coca Cola Co. and others, reported at (1995) 5 SCC 545, and also on an unreported order in Appeal against Order 5 No.81 of 2007 decided by this Court on 29-7-2008. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the plaintiff himself was responsible for the present situation, wherein the appellants have purchased the property without being aware of the suit, by failing to pay the process fee immediately after the suit was filed, the appellants cannot be deprived of the use of the property. Considering the fact that the appellants claimed to have purchased the property for constructing their own house, there should be no occasion for the appellants to alienate the property or to create any third-party interest therein. The interest of the appellants would be secured if the injunction is modified to restrict the appellants from alienating the property or creating any third-party interest therein without the leave of the Court, ensuring that the interest of the plaintiff are protected while granting such permission. As for changing the nature of 6 the suit, since the plaintiff wants to construct a house, given the fact that litigation in Civil Court pends for a very long time, the appellants may be permitted to proceed with construction of their own house at their risk without claiming any equity in the matter. 7. As regards blanket injunction granted by the learned Trial Judge at the instance of a person, who has paid only 1/5th of the consideration of Rs.25 lacs agreed upon, it would be sufficient if the order is made contingent upon the plaintiff’s depositing the balance of consideration of Rs.22 lacs in the Trial Court within three months, which the Trial Court shall invest in interest accruing deposit in the State Bank of India till the disposal of the suit. 8. With this modifications, the injunction order would operate against the appellants. 7 9. The appeal is thus partly allowed. JUDGE Lanjewar