1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1061 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1298 OF 2008 Mr.Premnarayan Shukla .... Appellant V/s. The National Co-op. Bank Ltd. And Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/by Mr.Sagar Kasar, for the appellant. Mr.D.A.Nalawade i/by Mr.R.A.Lokhande, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 P.C. 1. This appeal from order is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dvn., Kalyan, below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.265 of 2008. By the impugned order, the trial judge refused to grant interim injunction and rejected the application Exh.5. The appellant is the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent Bank. According to the plaintiff, he is an auction purchaser and since the bank has accepted 15% of the money towards the auction sale and having shown willingness to accept subsequent amount, the respondent bank cannot now refuse to allot the suit property to the plaintiff. 2. The respondent bank resisted the suit on various grounds. 2 It is the case of the bank that after paying 15% amount towards the purchase price, the plaintiff had not paid any subsequent amount practically for one year. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent that even two cheques which were given by the plaintiff also bounced back. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and have gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Since it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had not paid remaining balance amount as per the consideration of the sale, no right is created in favour of the plaintiff towards the said auction. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent, has pointed out a decision of the Supreme Court on identical point in the case of Shilpa Shares and Securities and Ors. V/s. National Co-operative Bank Ltd.,and Ors., 2007 DGLS (Soft) 515, In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has held that “purchase money is not paid within 15 days from the date of the sale nor even thereafter. There is no sale at all if the balance purchase money is not paid within 15 days. It is not a mere irregularity. Non-payment of the said amount renders the sale proceedings a complete nullity”. 4. In the present case, It is not in dispute that the sale amount was not paid for considerable time and practically for one year. In my view, the learned Trial Judge has not committed any error in refusing the 3 injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the bank is willing to pay back his 15% security amount which was initially paid, he is ready to withdraw the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that if the suit is withdrawn on that basis, the bank may consider the said proposal after deducting reasonable expenses. In this behalf, any application is preferred, the Trial Judge may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In case, ultimately the respondent bank is willing to pay back the security amount to the plaintiff after deducting reasonable expenses, the Trial Judge may try to put an end to the suit. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the appeal from order and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 5. In view of disposal of the Appeal from order, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Application. The same is also accordingly disposed of. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)