:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.504 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.504 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.504 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1220 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1220 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1220 OF 2008 Shri Pandharinath Sakharam Pawar ...Appellant. v. Mr.Prabhakar Ramchandra Kadam & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.T.D.Deshmukh , adv. for the Appellant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th September, 2008. DATE: 4th September, 2008. DATE: 4th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who is the original plaintiff. 2. Dispute is pertaining the property bearing C.T.S.No.105B at Rasta Peth within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Pune. The property belongs to the defendant nos.1 to 4. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the adjoining plot bearing C.T.S.No.105C. In 1996, he came to know that the defendant nos.1 to 4 wanted to sell their plot. Therefore, the plaintiff offered to purchase the said plot. Defendant nos.1 to 4 quoted the price at Rs.4,750/- per sq.mtr. but the plaintiff did not accept that rate and made the counter offer of Rs.1800/- per sq.mtr. Later on, the defendant nos.1 to 4 sold the property to the defendant nos.6 to 8. After that the :2: plaintiff filed suit claiming decree for execution of sale deed in his favour on the basis of right of pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff did not have any right of pre-emption. The appeal was also dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 3. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 4. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no.1220 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)