- 1 - ao392.10 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.392 OF 2010 Vrudhi Farms theAssociation of persons throgh Shri Jitendra Manhardas Thakkar & anr .. Appellants vs Shri Ashok Vishnudas Motiani & ors. ..Respondents Mr.R.A.Thorat for Appellants None for Respondent No.1 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 8 th August,2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants who are original defendant nos. 18 and 19. None for Respondent no.1 who is the contesting party and original plaintiff in the Suit. 2. Appeal is preferred against an order dated 3rd January,2009 whereby the present Appellants were restrained from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit land gat No. 680/6 and 680/7. It was contended that this order amounted to review of order passed on 21st - 2 - ao392.10 August,2005 below Exhibit 16 whereby ad interim order passed on 28th September,1999 was modified and these two properties were excluded from the purview of the said order. 3. It appears that on 28th September,1999 ex- parte ad interim injunction was granted by order below Exhibit 5 in Special civil suit no. 329/1999. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance for sale of certain properties. He also claimed perpetual injunction in respect of the some of the properties including above referred two properties on the ground that he had purchased the properties from the original owner in the year 1995 and therefore his possession should not be disturbed. Learned counsel for the Appellants after taking instructions from his clients makes a statement that Application at Exhibit 5 on which ad interim order was passed is not yet decided. Thus, it appears that for the last about 11 years, Application Exhibit 5 is still - 3 - ao392.10 pending. That interim order was first modified by order dated 21st October,2005 on an application made by the present Appellants and the order dated 1st October,2005 was again modified by order dated 3rd January,2009 as per order below Exhibit 87. 4. According to the plaintiff, the above referred two properties were sold away by the original owner to one Surana on 9th September, 1991 and Appellants had purchased those properties from said Surana on 5th August,1996 and thereby they are owners. In 1995, the original owner did not have any title over these two properties because he had already sold the said properties to Surana. It appears that the trial Court has not considered all the facts and circumstances because Application Exhibit 5 is still pending and above three orders have been passed either as interim orders or in adhoc manner. Therefore, it would be advisable if the Application Exhibit 5 itself should be heard and - 4 - ao392.10 finally disposed of. 5. Therefore, the trial court is directed to hear and pass an order on Application Exhibit 5 which is still pending as early as possible and preferably within three months. All the three orders dated 28th September,1999, 21st October, 2005 and 3rd January 2009 shall be subject to the order which may be passed finally on Exhibit 5. With aforesaid directions, Appeal stands dismissed. J.H.BHATIA, J