1 89 ao.291.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 291 OF 2011 M/s. Viraj Estate Private Ltd. ... Appellant Versus 1. a) Saroj Nijamuddin Saiyed and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, with Mr.R.D.Soni i/b Ram and Company for the Appellant. Mrs. Anita Castellino i/b Praful Salvi for Respondent No.1-a. Mrs. A.R.Lambay with Mr.Vikas R. Singh i/b Lambay and Company for Respondent Nos.2-a to 2-e. Mr. S.N.Gawade for Respondent Nos.3-a and 3-b. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25 th April, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 The Appellant is the original plaintiff. By the impugned order dated 7 th February, 2011, the learned trial Judge has rejected the application for temporary injunction made by the Appellant. 2 89 ao.291.11 3 The Appellant filed a suit on 27 th August, 2010 for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 26 th July, 1991. The Appellant is also relying upon a subsequent Development Agreement dated 13 th May, 1997. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that there is no denial by the Respondent No.1 of the receipt of the various amounts as set out in the plaint and the execution of the possession receipt. He submitted that the learned trial Court has completely misdirected itself and has proceeded on erroneous footing that there was a denial by the Respondent No.1. He submitted that there are documents on record to show that the parties have acted upon the agreement for sale and subsequent development agreement. He submitted that the Appellant is relying upon the deed of confirmation dated 21 st February, 2000. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. The substantive prayer made in the suit is for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 26 th July, 1991. As stated earlier, the suit has 3 89 ao.291.11 been filed in August 2010. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint show that there are no specific averments dealing with the steps allegedly taken by the Appellant on the basis of the suit agreement except for stating that a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- has been paid by the Appellant to one Mr.Saiyad Nijamuddin. There is another averment made that on the basis of the development agreement, approval has been obtained by the Appellant for layout and even development charges have been paid. There are no averments made in the plaint for explaining long delay of about nineteen years in instituting the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement. As far as deed of confirmation is concerned, a reference therein is to the development agreement dated 13 th May, 1997. One of the reasons recored by the learned trial Judge for declining to grant interim relief of the discretionary nature is the gross delay in approaching the Court. 5 It is not possible to find fault with the view taken by the learned trial Judge. In view of the gross delay, the Appellant is not entitled to equitable relief of temporary injunction. Hence, no case for 4 89 ao.291.11 interference is made out. Appeal from order is dismissed. 6 It is, however, made clear that as substantive suit is pending, all transactions in respect of the suit property will be subject to final decree, which may be passed in the suit. 7 All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open and the suit will be decided without being influenced by the impugned order and confirmation thereof by this Court. 8 Civil Application No. 418 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]