ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2152 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 2152 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 2152 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.87 OF APPEAL NO.87 OF APPEAL NO.87 OF 2005 2005 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Yashodhan Sakhare i/by. M/s. DSK Legal for the applicant. Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th October, 2007. : 16th October, 2007. : 16th October, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The appellant-plaintiffs’ suit for Specific Performance was dismissed, therefore, filed the First Appeal. The suit was filed after expiry of 3 years for specific performance only in reference to respondent No.1. The property involved, therefore, at present stage of the proceedings cannot be subject to any interim order even it comes under prayer clause (b). The ( 2 ) rights, whatever even if any, is now subject to the decision of the first appeal and that is too only in respect of respondent No.1. The property in fact owned by all the members, as a tenant common. 2. In view of this, I am not inclined to grant prayer clauses as claimed now in this application though it was initially granted, but subsequently vacated on 23/02/2007. 2. However, it is made clear that, whatever transfer if made by respondent No.1 will be subject to the decision of the first appeal, is restricted in so far as respondent number one’s share is concerned. 3. The Civil Application is, ( 3 ) disposed of, accordingly. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]