1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR A.O.NO.163 OF 2009 Vasant Bhauraoji Bhusari ..vs.. Prakash Laxmanrao Ande =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ms.I.P.Khisti Adv.for the appellant. Mr.Masood Sharif Adv. for the resp. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 27th January, 2010. The appellant has filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30 th of August, 2005 in which he had applied for interim injunction against the respondent, who is the owner of the suit property, from disturbing his possession and from creating any third party rights over the suit property. The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the application. The respondent – owner disputes that he had entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property with the appellant for consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs as alleged. He claims that he had executed only a power of attorney in 2 favour of the appellant on that date which power of attorney has been cancelled vide notice dated 28 th December, 2006. He denies having received any amount from the appellant. Perusal of the Power of Attorney and the alleged agreement of sale, which are of the same date, raise doubt as regards the agreement of sale. In the Power of Attorney, the respondent has specifically retained with himself the rights to receive the amount of the suit property in case the same is sold by the appellant on the basis of the power of attorney. If that was so, then there could hardly be any occasion for the respondent to enter into the agreement of the sale on the very day for sale of the suit property to the appellant. It is claimed by the appellant that on the very day he had made the entire payment of consideration of Rs.15 lakhs in cash to the respondent. In that circumstance, there would not have been any power of attorney executed in favour of the appellant. There is also no evidence produced before the court prima facie showing that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. The trial court has dismissed the application for interim relief taking into consideration the above factors and I find no infirmity whatsoever in the same. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed. JUDGE. chute 3