1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1072 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1325 OF 2008 Mr.Kunal Bhaskar Shrotri ... Appellant v/s Dr.Charudatta Kamlakar Mhaiskar ... Respondent Mr.Rajesh More for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed below Exh.5, an application filed by the appellant for interim relief. 2. It is the case of the appellant that a memorandum of understanding was arrived at between himself and the respondent for the sale of the suit property. It is the appellant’s case that the respondent has reneged on the agreement. The appellant has, therefore, sought specific 2 performance of the contract. 3. In my view, the Trial Court has rightly refused the injunction. The Trial Court has observed that the appellant can be compensated in terms of money in the event the suit is decreed. It is also observed that the plaintiff has agreed through the memorandum of understanding to enter into a comprehensive agreement only after the vendor obtains permission as stipulated under the Urban Land (Civil Regulations) Act, 1976 to make out a clear title. All these factors, according to the Trial Court, indicate that, prima facie, the parties were negotiating a settlement and the terms were reduced into writing which form part of the memorandum of understanding. The agreement was yet to be executed and, therefore, the Trial Court has refused interim relief. Thus, prima facie, there is no concluded contract between the parties. 4. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order which has been passed in the year 2008. 5. I am informed that the issues are framed and the matter has been posted for filing an affidavit of evidence. 6. Appeal from order stands dismissed along with the civil application. 3 4