1 ao112 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.112 OF 2009 Shankar Babu Gaikwad ...Appellant vs. Manohar Raoji Barathe ...Respondent Mr.Indrajeet Kulkarni i/b ALMT Legal for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 5, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for specific performance of the suit agreement for sale. By the impugned order dated 17th June 2008, the trial Court has retrained the appellant-defendant from creating third party interests in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the main suit. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the written statement itself it was pointed out that the appellant has alienated the suit property. He relies upon the agreement for sale dated 28th December 2007 executed by appellant and other family members in favour of a third party . He submitted that under the said agreement, possession has been parted with in favour of the third party. He submitted that without considering the aforesaid contention, injunction has been granted. 3 I have considered the submissions. Even according to the case of the appellant, he has executed an agreement for sale. In view of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882, the agreement does not create any 2 ao112 interest in the suit property. Pending a substantive suit for specific performance, only order which is passed against the appellant is of restraining him from creating third party interests of the suit property. Impugned order is operating from 17th June 2008. At this stage, no case is made out for interference with the discretionary and equitable order passed by the trial Court. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE